Resource holding potential, subjective resource value, and game theoretical models of aggressiveness signalling

Empirical evidence suggests that aggressiveness (willingness to enter into, or escalate an aggressive interaction) may be more important than the ability to win fights in some species. Both empirical and theoretical traditions treat aggressiveness as a distinct property from the ability (RHP) or mot...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of theoretical biology Vol. 241; no. 3; pp. 639 - 648
Main Author Hurd, Peter L.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Elsevier Ltd 07.08.2006
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Empirical evidence suggests that aggressiveness (willingness to enter into, or escalate an aggressive interaction) may be more important than the ability to win fights in some species. Both empirical and theoretical traditions treat aggressiveness as a distinct property from the ability (RHP) or motivation (subjective resource value) to win a fight. I examine how these three traits are clearly distinct when modelled using a simple strategic model of escalation. I then examine game theoretical models of agonistic communication and demonstrate that models in which aggressiveness is signalled require: (1) a trait, aggressiveness, which is neither a correlate, nor consequence of RHP or motivation, (2) a handicap which negates any benefit to be gained through the use of a particular signal, and (3) the absence of any other asymmetry which could be used to assign roles to players. I conclude that it is unlikely that these assumptions are ever met, and that empirical examples of “aggressiveness” are far more likely to represent long-term differences in subjective resource value.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0022-5193
1095-8541
DOI:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.01.001