Group patterns.

<p>This table summarizes some additional group patterns documented in the literature, and compares the findings to the patterns emerging in our model at different settings for LPS. The model findings in bold type are contrast to empirical findings.</p

Behavioral probability functions.

<p>The upper part of this figure (<b>A</b>) shows the general probability for affiliative behavior as a function of the LIKE attitude of ego towards the potential partner (x-axis), depending on the level of an individual’s intrinsic motivation to perform affiliative behavior (dotted line: high motivation, dashed line: intermediate motivation, solid line: no intrinsic motivation) and on the setting of LPS (see panels). The internal motivation is calculated based on ego’s level of anxiety and satisfaction (see text and equation for myAFF_MOT). Higher LPS results in lower affiliation probabilities for potential partners towards whom ego assigns a low LIKE attitude. Thus, with higher LPS ego becomes more selective and prefers high-LIKE partners relatively more than low-LIKE partners. The lower part of this figure (<b>B</b>) shows the probability for agonistic behavior as a function of the FEAR attitude of ego towards the potential partner (x-axis), depending on the level of ego’s anxiety (dotted line: high anxiety, dashed line: intermediate anxiety, solid line: no anxiety). The panel shows the specific behavioral probabilities for aggression, submission and avoidance.</p

Differences between similar and distant-ranked dyads.

<p>This table summarizes the differences between similar (S) and distant-ranked dyads (D) documented in the literature, and compares the findings to the patterns emerging in our model at different settings for LPS (N = 10 simulation runs), using significance levels of 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**) and 0.001 (***). The differences between similar and distant-ranked dyads in our model were tested with a paired t-test. The model findings in bold type are contrast to empirical findings.</p

Interactions between behavior, emotional state and attitudes.

<p>This figure illustrates the effect of behavior on an individual’s emotional state and its partner-specific attitudes towards others and vice versa. Solid arrows indicate an increasing effect, while dashed arrows indicate a decreasing effect. Partner-specific effects are depicted as black and general effects are depicted as grey arrows. Light grey arrows depict effects that also depend on other factors, such as the rank of the opponent or the outcome of a fight. See <i>Subsection Basic Principles</i> and the respective <i>Submodels</i> for more details.</p

Patterns emergent from our model.

<p>This table summarizes the emergent patterns from our model (for different settings of LPS), for which empirical data are still needed. The differences between subordinates (Sub) and dominants (Dom) in our model were tested with a paired t-test (N = 10 simulation runs), using significance levels of 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**) and 0.001 (***).</p

Interaction matrices of behaviours in the fixed attitude model.

<p>This figure shows the dyadic behavioural rates of a group at different settings of selectivity (LPS) in the fixed attitude model. For more details on the specific behaviours and how they were measured see caption of <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118921#pone.0118921.g002" target="_blank">Fig. 2</a>. The plot shows the behavioural rates of one example run averaged over one YEAR. Dark shades represent high rates or values. Values at the diagonal are by definition not applicable. Affiliative signals and approach are distributed very similarly to grooming given, aggressive signals are distributed very similarly to attacks, avoidance and leaving are distributed very similarly to submissive signals; these patterns are presented in Figure F7 in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118921#pone.0118921.s001" target="_blank">S1 Supplementary Material</a>.</p

Interaction matrices of behaviours in the dynamic attitude model.

<p>This figure shows the dyadic behavioural rates of a group at different settings of selectivity (LPS) in the dynamic attitude model. Behaviours are directed from actors (y-axis) to receivers (x-axis), both are ordered by dominance strength, ranging from low-ranking (myDOM = 0.05) to high-ranking (myDOM = 1.0) individuals. Proximity is measured as the ratio of samples in which a dyad was observed in proximity. Grooming given is measured in MINUTES per HOUR. LIKE attitudes are measured as the average level of an individual's LIKE attitude directed to another group member. Attacks and submissive signals are measured in occurrences per HOUR. The plot shows the behavioural rates of one example run averaged over one YEAR. Dark shades represent high rates or values. Values at the diagonal are by definition not applicable. Affiliative signals and approach are distributed very similarly to grooming given, aggressive signals are distributed very similarly to attacks, avoidance and leaving are distributed very similarly to submissive signals; these patterns are presented in Figure F3 in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0118921#pone.0118921.s001" target="_blank">S1 Supplementary Material</a>.</p

Behavioural rates per rank-distance category in the dynamic attitude model.

<p>This figure shows the averaged behavioural rates for distant-ranked (grey box-plots) and similar-ranked (black box-plots) dyads at different settings of selectivity (LPS) in the dynamic attitude model. Note that the setting LPS = 0 refers to the null model setting. Proximity is measured as the ratio of samples in which the members of a dyad were observed in proximity. The level of LIKE attitudes was measured as the average level of all dyadic LIKE attitudes directed to (distant- or similar-ranking) group members. Grooming given is measured in MINUTES per HOUR per dyad. Signals, approach, leaving, avoid and attacks are measured in occurrences per hour per dyad. The box-plots show the results of 10 simulation runs, averaged over 1 YEAR.</p

Reciprocity of behaviours.

<p>This figure shows the group-level reciprocity of behaviours at different settings of selectivity (LPS) in the dynamic (black box-plots) and the fixed (grey box-plots) attitude model. Group-level reciprocity is measured as Kendall rowwise tau. Positive rowise tau values indicate that behaviours are reciprocated. Negative rowise tau values indicate that behaviours are imbalanced. Rowwise tau values were calculated based on behaviours averaged over one YEAR. The box-plots show the rowwise tau values of 10 simulation runs.</p

Emotional levels and behavioral rates per rank category.

<p>This figure shows the averaged levels of the emotional state and rates of behavior for dominants (black box-plots) and subordinates (grey box-plots) at different settings of selectivity (LPS). Proximity is measured as the average number of individuals in proximity. The LIKE attitudes were measured as the average level of all dyadic LIKE attitudes an (subordinate or dominant) individual directed to other group members. Grooming given is measured in MINUTES per HOUR per individual. Signals, approach, leaving, avoid and attacks are measured in occurrences per hour given per individual. Levels of arousal, anxiety and satisfaction levels were averaged per individual. The box-plots show the results of 10 simulation runs, averaged over 1 YEAR.</p