Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Sep 18.
Published in final edited form as: Anim Behav. 2024 Apr 1;211:147–161. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2024.03.002

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 A6A15. 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.