The Collective Action Problem but Not Numerical Superiority Explains Success in Intergroup Encounters in Verreaux’s Sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi): Implications for Individual Participation and Free-Riding

Sex differences in cooperative coalitions: a mammalian perspective

In group-living species, cooperative tactics can offset asymmetries in resource-holding potential between individuals and alter the outcome of intragroup conflicts. Differences in the kinds of competitive pressures that males and females face might influence the benefits they gain from forming intragroup coalitions. We predicted that there would be a female bias in intragroup coalitions because females (1) are more like to live with kin than males are, and (2) compete over resources that are more readily shared than resources males compete over. We tested this main prediction using information about coalition formation across mammalian species and phylogenetic comparative analyses. We found that for nearly all species in which intragroup coalitions occur, members of both sexes participate, making this the typical mammalian pattern. The presence and frequency of female or male coalitions were not strongly associated with key socio-ecological factors like resource defensibility, sexual dimorphism or philopatry. This suggests that once the ability to form intragroup coalitions emerges in one sex, it is likely to emerge in the other sex as well and that there is no strong phylogenetic legacy of sex differences in this form of cooperation. This article is part of the theme issue 'Cooperation among women: evolutionary and cross-cultural perspectives'.

Characterizing group and individual engagement in intergroup encounters between small groups of ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) on St. Catherines Island, USA

Primate species exhibit considerable variation in behavior and outcomes during intergroup encounters (IGEs). Social group characteristics, like group size, and individual traits, such as sex, rank, and reproductive status, within those groups can influence both IGE engagement and outcomes. To better understand the impact of group heterogeneity on IGEs, we must examine individual strategies to elucidate individual costs and benefits of engaging in these interactions. Here, we present a descriptive study of the IGEs between two small social groups of ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) on St. Catherines Island, GA, USA. We distinguish between dyadic and multiple-individual interactions between groups to compare collective and individual agonistic engagement. All encounters occurred when the East Road group (N = 7 individuals) traveled from the center of their home range to the boundary with Windmill group's (N = 5 individuals) home range, indicating that East Road might have been actively testing this boundary for access to food resources, sleeping trees, and mating opportunities. We also found notable individual variation in participation during IGEs. The daughters of the highest-ranking females were the most-engaged in dyadic intergroup and intragroup aggression, had high "win" rates during intergroup dyadic encounters, and engaged in intergroup multiple-individual interactions at high levels. These findings indicate that they might value their home range more as "potential alphas" compared to other group members. Dominant females were the most engaged in multiple-individual interactions, suggesting that they contribute heavily to collective action that might result in a gain or loss of access to resources. Finally, these two small groups might be equally matched despite the two-individual group size disparity due to individual free-riding strategies. Future research should focus on individual strategies during IGEs to characterize the complex decisions and trade-offs that influence participation.

Fighting force and experience combine to determine contest success in a warlike mammal

Intergroup conflict has been proposed as a major influence in social evolution. Understanding how intergroup contests exert selection on group living requires determining what properties of groups and their members drive contest success. We analyzed 19 y of data on intergroup fighting in wild banded mongooses to disentangle the factors that determine victory. Two factors, the number of males in the group and the age of the oldest “senior” male, most strongly influence the probability of victory. Senior males may be a benefit because of their disproportionate fighting experience. As in human societies, strength in numbers and the presence of key individuals are critical for success in violent intergroup contests, perhaps influencing selection on individual life history and social behavior.

Conflicts between social groups or “intergroup contests” are proposed to play a major role in the evolution of cooperation and social organization in humans and some nonhuman animal societies. In humans, success in warfare and other collective conflicts depends on both fighting group size and the presence and actions of key individuals, such as leaders or talismanic warriors. Understanding the determinants of intergroup contest success in other warlike animals may help to reveal the role of these contests in social evolution. Using 19 y of data on intergroup encounters in a particularly violent social mammal, the banded mongoose (Mungos mungo), we show that two factors, the number of adult males and the age of the oldest male (the “senior” male), have the strongest impacts on the probability of group victory. The advantage conferred by senior males appears to stem from their fighting experience. However, the galvanizing effect of senior males declines as they grow old until, at very advanced ages, senior males become a liability rather than an asset and can be evicted. As in human conflict, strength in numbers and the experience of key individuals combine to determine intergroup contest success in this animal society. We discuss how selection arising from intergroup contests may explain a suite of features of individual life history and social organization, including male eviction, sex-assortative alloparental care, and adult sex ratio.

Key individuals catalyse intergroup violence

Intergroup violence is challenging to understand: why do individuals cooperate to harm members of other groups when they themselves may be killed or injured? Despite progress in understanding the evolutionary and proximate mechanisms that underlie violence, we still have little insight into the processes that lead to the emergence of coalitionary aggression. We argue that an overlooked component is the presence of individuals who have a crucial role in initiating violence. In instigating intergroup violence, these key individuals may expect to face lower costs, receive greater benefits, or garner benefits that have a greater value to them than others. Alternatively, key individuals may be motivated by individual traits such as increased boldness, propensity for aggression or exploratory behaviour. Key individuals catalyse the emergence of coalitionary violence through one of several processes including altering the costs and benefits that accrue to others, paying a greater share of the startup costs, signalling privileged knowledge, or providing coordination, among other factors. Here we integrate diverse lines of empirical research from humans and non-human animals demonstrating that inter-individual variation is an important factor in the emergence of intergroup violence. Focusing on the role of key individuals provides new insights into how and why violence emerges. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Sex bias in intergroup conflict and collective movements among social mammals: male warriors and female guides

Intergroup conflict is a major evolutionary force shaping animal and human societies. Males and females should, on average, experience different costs and benefits for participating in collective action. Specifically, among mammals, male fitness is generally limited by access to mates whereas females are limited by access to food and safety. Here we analyse sex biases among 72 species of group-living mammals in two contexts: intergroup conflict and collective movements. Our comparative phylogenetic analyses show that the modal mammalian pattern is male-biased participation in intergroup conflict and female-biased leadership in collective movements. However, the probability of male-biased participation in intergroup conflicts decreased and female-biased participation increased with female-biased leadership in movements. Thus, female-biased participation in intergroup conflict only emerged in species with female-biased leadership in collective movements, such as in spotted hyenas and some lemurs. Sex differences are probably attributable to costs and benefits of participating in collective movements (e.g. towards food, water, safety) and intergroup conflict (e.g. access to mates or resources, risk of injury). Our comparative review offers new insights into the factors shaping sex bias in leadership across social mammals and is consistent with the 'male warrior hypothesis' which posits evolved sex differences in human intergroup psychology. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Variation between species, populations, groups and individuals in the fitness consequences of out-group conflict

Out-group conflict is rife in the natural world, occurring from primates to ants. Traditionally, research on this aspect of sociality has focused on the interactions between groups and their conspecific rivals, investigating contest function and characteristics, which group members participate and what determines who wins. In recent years, however, there has been increasing interest in the consequences of out-group conflict. In this review, we first set the scene by outlining the fitness consequences that can arise immediately to contest participants, as well as a broader range of delayed, cumulative and third-party effects of out-group conflict on survival and reproductive success. For the majority of the review, we then focus on variation in these fitness consequences of out-group conflict, describing known examples both between species and between populations, groups and individuals of the same species. Throughout, we suggest possible reasons for the variation, provide examples from a diverse array of taxa, and suggest what is needed to advance this burgeoning area of social evolution. This article is part of the theme issue 'Intergroup conflict across taxa'.

Drivers and outcomes of between-group conflict in vervet monkeys

Neighbouring groups compete over access to resources and territories in between-group encounters, which can escalate into between-group conflicts (BGCs). Both the ecological characteristics of a territory and the rival's fighting ability shape the occurrence and outcome of such contests. What remains poorly understood, however, is how seasonal variability in the ecological value of a territory together with fighting ability related to the likelihood of between-group encounters and the extent to which these escalate into conflicts. To test this, we observed and followed four vervet monkey groups in the wild, and recorded the group structure (i.e. size, composition), the locations and the outcomes of 515 BGCs. We then assessed key ecological measures at these locations, such as vegetation availability (estimated from Copernicus Sentinel 2 satellite images) and the intensity of usage of these locations. We tested to what extent these factors together influenced the occurrence and outcomes of BGCs. We found that the occurrence of BGCs increased at locations with higher vegetation availability relative to the annual vegetation availability within the group's home territory. Also, groups engaging in a BGC at locations far away from their home territory were less likely to win a BGC. Regarding group structure, we found that smaller groups systematically won BGCs against larger groups, which can be explained by potentially higher rates of individual free-riding occurring in larger groups. This study sheds light on how the ecology of encounter locations in combination with a group's social characteristics can critically impact the dynamics of BGCs in a non-human primate species.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Intergroup conflict across taxa’.

Assessment during Intergroup Contests

Research on how competitors assess (i.e., gather information on) fighting ability and contested resources, as well as how assessment impacts on contest processes and outcomes, has been fundamental to the field of dyadic (one-on-one) contests. Despite recent growth in studies of contests between social-living groups, there is limited understanding of assessment during these intergroup contests. We adapt current knowledge of dyadic contest assessment to the intergroup case, describing what traits of groups, group members, and resources are assessed, and how assessment is manifested in contest processes (e.g., behaviors) and outcomes. This synthesis helps to explain the role of individual heterogeneity in assessment and how groups are shaped by the selective pressure of contests.