Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 17, Issue 5–6, pp 509–522

The Napoleon Complex: why smaller males pick fights

Article

Abstract

Does it ever pay for smaller animals to initiate fights even when they are likely to lose? Asymmetry in payoffs between opponents or a suboptimal strategy resulting from likely losers misperceiving themselves as likely winners have both been proposed as possible explanations for the aggressive behavior of smaller males. The model presented here suggests that in some cases, even without a payoff asymmetry and allowing for only a small error in perception, likely losers are expected to attack first. If the value of the resource exceeds the cost of losing a fight, the cost of displaying is sufficiently small, and assessment of resource holding power is reasonably accurate but not perfect, the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) prompts those contestants who perceive themselves as the likely losers to initiate fights, while it prompts those contestants who perceive themselves as the likely winners to wait for the adversary to attack or retreat.

aggression assessment of fighting ability escalation evolutionarily stable strategy resource holding power 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archer, J. (1988) The Behavioural Biology of Aggression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Barlow, G.W., Rogers, W. and Fraley, N. (1986) Do Midas Cichlids win through prowess or daring? It depends. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 19, 1–8.Google Scholar
  3. Brace, R.C. and Pavey, J. (1978) Size-dependent dominance hierarchy in the anemone Actinia equina. Nature 273, 752–753.Google Scholar
  4. Bradbury, J.W. and Vehrencamp, S.L. (1998) Principles of Animal Communication. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp. 667–710.Google Scholar
  5. Dow, M., Ewing, A.W. and Sutherland, I. (1976) Studies on the behavior of cyprinodont fish III. The temporal patterning of aggresssion in Aphyosemion striatum (Boulenger). Behaviour 59, 252–268.Google Scholar
  6. Dowds, B.M. and Elwood, R.W. (1983) Shell wars: assessment strategies and the timing of decisions in hermit crab shell fights. Behaviour 85, 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Dugatkin, L.A. and Biederman, L. (1991) Balancing asymmetries in resource holding power and resource value in the pumpkinseed sunfish. Anim. Behav. 42, 691–692.Google Scholar
  8. Dugatkin, L.A. and Ohlsen, S.R. (1990) Contrasting asymmetries in value expectation and resource holding power: effects on attack behavior and dominance in the pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus. Anim. Behav. 39, 802–804.Google Scholar
  9. Enquist, M. and Jackobsson, S. (1986) Decision making and assessment in the fighting behavior of Nannacara anomala (Cichlidae, Pisces). Ethology 72, 143–153.Google Scholar
  10. Enquist, M. and Leimar, O. (1983) Evolution of fighting behaviour: decision rules and assessment of relative strength. J. Theor. Biol. 102, 387–410.Google Scholar
  11. Enquist, M. and Leimar, O. (1990) The evolution of fatal fighting. Anim. Behav. 39, 1–9.Google Scholar
  12. Figler, M.H. and Einhorn, D.M. (1983) The territorial prior residence effect in convict cichlids (Chichlasoma nigrofasciatum Gunther): temporal aspects of establishment and retention and proximate mechanisms. Behaviour 85, 157–181.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, R. (1995) Games for Business and Economics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  14. Grafen, A. (1987) The logic of diversively asymmetric contests: respect for ownership and the desperado effect. Anim. Behav. 35, 462–467.Google Scholar
  15. Hammerstein, P. (1981) The role of asymmetries in animal contests. Anim. Behav. 19, 193–205.Google Scholar
  16. Hofbauer, J. and Sigmund, K. (1998) Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Just, W. and Sun, X. (2003) Simulating the evolution of contest escalation. In A. Barry (ed.) Workshop Program for GECCO 2003 (Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference), 75–77.Google Scholar
  18. Just, W., Wu, M. and Holt, J. (2000) How to evolve a Napoleon Complex. In A. Zalzala (ed.) Proceedings of 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE Press, pp. 851–856.Google Scholar
  19. Keeley, E.R. and Grant, J.W.A. (1993) Asymmetries in the expected value of food do not predict the outcome of contests between convict cichlids. Anim. Behav. 45, 1035–1037.Google Scholar
  20. Maynard Smith, J. (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J. Theor. Biol. 47, 209–221.Google Scholar
  21. Maynard Smith, J. (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  22. Morris, M.R., Gass, L. and Ryan, M.J. (1995) Assessment and individual recognition of opponents in the swordtailsXiphophorus nigrensis and X. multilineatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37, 303–310.Google Scholar
  23. Parker, G.A. (1974) Assessment strategy and evolution of fighting behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 47, 223–243.Google Scholar
  24. Payne, R.J.H. (1998) Gradually escalating fights and displays: the cumulative assessment model. Anim. Behav. 56, 651–662.Google Scholar
  25. Payne, R.J.H. and Pagel, M. (1996) Escalation and time costs in displays of endurance. J. Theor. Biol. 183, 185–193.Google Scholar
  26. Ribowski, A. and Franck, D. (1993) Demonstration of strength and concealment of weakness in escalating fights of male swordtails (Xiphophorus helleri). Ethology 93, 265–271.Google Scholar
  27. Selten, R.J. (1980) A note on evolutionarily stable strategies in asymmetric animal conflicts. J. Theor. Biol. 84, 93–101.Google Scholar
  28. Turner, G.F. and Huntingford, F. (1986) A problem for game theory analysis: assessment and intention in male mouthbrooder contests. Anim. Behav. 34, 961–970.Google Scholar
  29. Zack, S. (1975) A description and analysis of agonistic behaviour patterns in an opisthobranch mollusk, Hermissenda crassicornis. Behaviour 5, 238–267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations