The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social network theory: new insights and issues for behavioral ecologists
Open accessAbstract
Until recently, few studies have used social network theory (SNT) and metrics to examine how social network structure (SNS) might influence social behavior and social dynamics in non-human animals. Here, we present an overview of why and how the social network approach might be useful for behavioral ecology. We first note four important aspects of SNS that are commonly observed, but relatively rarely quantified: (1) that within a social group, differences among individuals in their social experiences and connections affect individual and group outcomes; (2) that indirect connections can be important (e.g., partners of your partners matter); (3) that individuals differ in their importance in the social network (some can be considered keystone individuals); and (4) that social network traits often carry over across contexts (e.g., SN position in male–male competition can influence later male mating success). We then discuss how these four points, and the social network approach in general, can yield new insights and questions for a broad range of issues in behavioral ecology including: mate choice, alternative mating tactics, male–male competition, cooperation, reciprocal altruism, eavesdropping, kin selection, dominance hierarchies, social learning, information flow, social foraging, and cooperative antipredator behavior. Finally, we suggest future directions including: (1) integrating behavioral syndromes and SNT; (2) comparing space use and SNS; (3) adaptive partner choice and SNS; (4) the dynamics and stability (or instability) of social networks, and (5) group selection shaping SNS.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Finding and evaluating community structure in networks
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.69.026113 · Cited by 13,931
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization
Barabási, A.-L., & Oltvai, Z. N. (2004) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1272 · Cited by 7,903
Structural Holes and Good Ideas
Burt, R. S. (2004) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/421787 · Cited by 5,642
Transcriptional Regulatory Networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Lee, T. I., Rinaldi, N. J., Robert, F., Odom, D. T., Bar-Joseph, Z., Gerber, G. K., Hannett, N. M., Harbison, C. T., Thompson, C. M., Simon, I., et al. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1075090 · Cited by 2,956
A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks
Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04605 · Cited by 2,208
Communication in neuronal networks
Laughlin, S. B., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1089662 · Cited by 950
Network theory and SARS: predicting outbreak diversity
Meyers, L. A., Pourbohloul, B., Newman, M. E. J., Skowronski, D. M., & Brunham, R. C. (2005) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.07.026 · Cited by 705
Cooperation Prevails When Individuals Adjust Their Social Ties
Santos, F. C., Pacheco, J. M., & Lenaerts, T. (2006) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020140 · Cited by 556 · cited 1×
“For groups of a given size, cooperation is more likely to be favored if individuals interact in relatively small subgroups (e.g., primarily with a few neighbors; Santos et al. 2006).”
Background
Cited by
Temporal dynamics and network analysis
Blonder, B., Wey, T. W., Dornhaus, A., James, R., & Sih, A. (2012) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00236.x · Cited by 254
Self-citationInfluencing factors of trust in consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce with gender and age
Yoon, H. S., & Occeña, L. G. (2015) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.02.003 · Cited by 192
The interplay between social networks and culture: theoretically and among whales and dolphins
Cantor, M., & Whitehead, H. (2013) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0340 · Cited by 149
SCHEL, A. M., RAWLINGS, B., CLAIDIÈRE, N., WILKE, C., WATHAN, J., RICHARDSON, J., PEARSON, S., S. HERRELKO, E., WHITEN, A., & SLOCOMBE, K. (2013) · American Journal of Primatology · doi:10.1002/ajp.22101 · Cited by 65
Recognising the key role of individual recognition in social networks
Gokcekus, S., Firth, J. A., Regan, C., & Sheldon, B. C. (2021) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.009 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Sih, A., Hanser, S. F., & McHugh, K. A.
- Venue
- Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
- Published
- 2009-04-02
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 975-988
- ISSN
- 0340-5443 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0762
- OpenAlex
- W2145353161
- Cited by
- 443
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 24.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social network theory: new insights and issues for behavioral ecologists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00265-009-0725-6
- The paper
- Sih, A., Hanser, S. F., & McHugh, K. A. (2009). Social network theory: new insights and issues for behavioral ecologists. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-009-0725-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
