Signalling Victory to Ensure Dominance: A Continuous Model

  • Mike Mesterton-GibbonsEmail author
  • Tom N. Sherratt
Part of the Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games book series (AISDG, volume 12)


A possible rationale for victory displays—which are performed by the winners of contests but not by the losers—is that the displays are attempts to decrease the probability that the loser of a contest will initiate a future contest with the same individual. We explore the logic of this “browbeating” rationale with a game-theoretic model, which extends previous work by incorporating the effects of contest length and the loser’s strategic response. The model predicts that if the reproductive advantage of dominance over an opponent is sufficiently high, then, in a population adopting the evolutionarily stable strategy or ESS, neither winners nor losers signal in contests that are sufficiently short; and only winners signal in longer contests, but with an intensity that increases with contest length. These predictions are consistent with the outcomes of recent laboratory studies, especially among crickets, where there is now mounting evidence that eventual winners signal far more frequently than losers after fighting, and that post-conflict displays are more likely to be observed after long contests.


Contest behavior Evolutionarily stable strategies Post-conflict displays 



We are grateful to Lauren Fitzsimmons and two anonymous reviewers for constructive feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Alexander, R.D.: Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication. Evolution 16, 443–467 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey, W.J., Stoddart, J.A.: A method for the construction of dominance hierarchies in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus (Le Guillou). Anim. Behav. 30, 216–220 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertram, S.M., Rook, V.L.M., Fitzsimmons, L.P.: Strutting their stuff: victory displays in the spring field cricket, Gryllus veletis. Behaviour 147, 1249–1266 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bower, J.L.: The occurrence and function of victory displays within communication networks. In: McGregor, P. (ed.) Animal Communication Networks, pp 114–126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caro, T.M.: The functions of stotting in Thomson’s gazelles: some tests of the predictions. Anim. Behav. 34, 663–684 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cressman, R.: Evolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cresswell, W.: Song as a pursuit-deterrent signal, and its occurrence relative to other anti-predation behaviours of skylark (Alauda arvensis) on attack by merlins (Falco columbarius). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34, 217–223 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Golus, C.: Muhammad Ali. Twenty-First Century Books, Minneapolis (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grafe, T., Bitz, J.H.: An acoustic postconflict display in the duetting tropical boubou (Laniarius aethiopicus): a signal of victory? BMC Ecol. 4(1) (2004).
  10. 10.
    Hardy, I.C.W., Briffa, M. (eds.): Animal Contests. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hofbauer, J., Sigmund, K.: Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huntingford, F., Turner, A.K.: Animal Conflict. Chapman & Hall, London (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jang, Y., Gerhardt, H.C., Choe, J.C.: A comparative study of aggressiveness in eastern North American field cricket species (genus Gryllus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62, 1397–1407 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leal, M., Rodríguez-Robles, J.A.: Signalling displays during predator-prey interactions in a puerto rican anole, Anolis cristatellus. Anim. Behav. 54, 1147–1154 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lippold, S., Fitzsimmons, L.P., Foote, J.R., Ratcliffe, L.M., Mennill, D.J.: Post-contest behaviour in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus): loser displays, not victory displays, follow asymmetrical countersinging exchanges. Acta Ethol. 11, 67–72 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Logue, D.M., Abiola, I.O., Rains, D., Bailey, N.W., Zuk, M., Cade, W.H.: Does signalling mitigate the cost of agonistic interactions? a test in a cricket that has lost its song. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.  B 277, 2571–2575 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maynard, S.J.: Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGill, B.J., Brown, J.S.: Evolutionary game theory and adaptive dynamics of continuous traits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 38, 403–435 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mesterton-Gibbons, M.: On the evolution of pure winner and loser effects: a game-theoretic model. Bull. Math. Biol. 61, 1151–1186 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mesterton-Gibbons, M., Sherratt, T.N.: Victory displays: a game-theoretic analysis. Behav. Ecol. 17, 597–605 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rutte, C., Taborsky, M., Brinkhof, M.W.G.: What sets the odds of winning and losing? Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 16–21 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tracy, J.L., Matsumoto, D.: The spontaneous expression of pride and shame: evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 11655–11660 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations