Table 3.
Model outputs predicting parasite infection in relation to affiliative relationships
Predictor | Mean | SE | 89% CI | Direction of effect |
---|---|---|---|---|
B. coli presence | ||||
No. weak prox partners | −0.71 | 0.37 | −1.37, −0.15 | ↓ |
No. weak groom partners | −0.69 | 0.44 | −1.46, 0.00 | ↓ |
Str strong partners | −0.49 | 0.44 | −1.26, 0.18 | – |
S. fuelleborni presence | ||||
No. weak prox partners | 0.35 | 0.39 | −0.28, 0.99 | – |
No. weak groom partners | 0.37 | 0.42 | −0.33, 1.06 | – |
T. trichiura presence | ||||
No. weak prox partners | 0.34 | 0.4 | −0.29, 0.98 | – |
No. weak groom partners | −0.06 | 0.42 | −0.75, 0.61 | – |
Str strong partners | −0.04 | 0.44 | −0.79, 0.63 | – |
Each row represents the estimates for measures of affiliative relationships run in separate models. Estimates for control variables (age, sex, rank) can be found in Tables A6–A15. 89% CI: credible interval, ‘-’: no effect detected. ‘no. weak prox partners’ and ‘no. weak groom partners’ indicate the number of weak grooming and proximity partners, respectively. ‘str strong partner’ indicates the strength of strong grooming partners.