ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022
Variation between species, populations, groups and individuals in the fitness consequences of out-group conflict.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dwarf mongooses pre-emptively alter their behaviour relative to the threat posed by different rival groups.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- The role of between-group signaling in the evolution of primate ornamentation.Evolution letters · 2024Article
- A positive effect of cumulative intergroup threat on reproductive success.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Fitness consequences of outgroup conflict.eLife · 2022Review
- Parochial cooperation in wild chimpanzees: a model to explain the evolution of parochial altruism.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- Intergroup conflict: origins, dynamics and consequences across taxa.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Leaders of war: modelling the evolution of conflict among heterogeneous groups.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- From inter-group conflict to inter-group cooperation: insights from social insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.