Table 1. Random factors, response and predictor variables tested in the models.
| Subject [code] | Year of birth 1 [yyyy] | Target behaviour [context] | Relative uGC [%] | Duration of behaviour [min] | Rank of subject 2 [order] | Role of subject [aggressor / victim] | Intensity of aggression [non- / contact] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HW | 1993±1y | aggression | 104.5 | 2 | 7 | aggressor | contact |
| NK | 1982±1y | aggression | 122.5 | 1 | 1 | aggressor | contact |
| SQ | 1991±1y | aggression | 111.4 | 1 | 6 | aggressor | contact |
| ZF | 1982±1y | aggression | 92.5 | 1 | 4 | aggressor | non-contact |
| BB | 1987±1y | aggression | 146.1 | 3 | 2 | victim | non-contact |
| FD | 1994±1y | aggression | 95.6 | 2 | 9 | victim | contact |
| HW | 1993±1y | aggression | 65.6 | 3 | 7 | victim | contact |
| KT | 1993±1y | aggression | 115.8 | 3 | 5 | victim | non-contact |
| MS | 1991±1y | aggression | 140.6 | 1 | 3 | victim | contact |
| NK | 1982±1y | aggression | 170.1 | 2 | 1 | victim | contact |
| NK | 1982±1y | aggression | 82 | 2 | 1 | victim | non-contact |
| SQ | 1991±1y | aggression | 80.4 | 3 | 6 | victim | contact |
| ZF | 1982±1y | aggression | 128.7 | 2 | 4 | victim | non-contact |
| ZF | 1982±1y | aggression | 107.1 | 1 | 4 | victim | contact |
| FD | 1994±1y | resting | 54.3 | 30 | 9 | ||
| HW | 1993±1y | resting | 85.9 | 115 | 7 | ||
| HW | 1993±1y | resting | 69.4 | 60 | 7 | ||
| KT | 1993±1y | resting | 145.3 | 125 | 5 | ||
| MS | 1991±1y | resting | 49.6 | 45 | 3 | ||
| NK | 1982±1y | resting | 91.4 | 50 | 1 | ||
| NK | 1982±1y | resting | 99.7 | 30 | 1 | ||
| SQ | 1991±1y | resting | 87.5 | 45 | 6 | ||
| TK | 1960±5y | resting | 82.9 | 60 | 8 | ||
| ZF | 1982±1y | resting | 81.3 | 60 | 4 |
1estimated
2taken from Table S1 of [38]