Skip to main content
Log in

The risks and benefits of signalling aggressive motivation: a study of cave-dwelling little blue penguins

  • Published:
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Cave-dwelling little blue penguins, Eudyptula minor, use a large repertoire of agonistic displays. Both qualitative and quantitative measures suggested that some displays were more dangerous to perform than others (estimated by the risk of being injured by one's opponent). A lag sequential analysis of interactions indicated a positive relationship between the risks of performing a display and the display's effectiveness (i.e., in deterring opponents). The cost or risk asymmetries that exist between displays may allow opponents to assess how motivated the actor is to secure or defend resources. Thus, high cost displays are more effective because they reveal a willingness to take risks and also place the opponent in a higher risk situation. Communicating in this way can be an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) because signalling a strong motivation entails using potentially costly behavior (i.e., there are costs associated with bluffing). Also, displays that were accompanied by calls were more effective in deterring opponents than the same displays performed silently. Calls may ‘highlight’ the risks being taken by actors; this may be particularly important in nocturnal species like little blue penguins. Aggressive displays could also be used to predict what the actor was and was not likely to do following the performance of the display. Generally, aggressive displays predicted that the actor would escalate to a higher risk behavior if the opponent did not retreat, but that it would use a lower risk behavior if the opponent backed down. However, risk-based displays should be seen as revealing a certain level of motivation at the time of the display and not as a way of describing how great a risk the actor is willing to take following the display. The predictive value of displays appears to be the result of an escalation process which ensures that opponents are deterred by the lowest risk behavior possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison PD, Liker JK (1982) Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: a comment on Gottman. Psych Bull 91:393–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Amlaner CH, Stout JF (1978) Aggressive communication by Larus glaucescens. Part VI: Interactions of territory residents with a remotely controlled locomotory model. Behaviour 66:223–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1976) Social behaviour and communication in the great skua. Behaviour 58:40–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1980) Why are there so many threat displays? J Theor Biol 86:773–781

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman R (1983) Computing lag sequential statistics: the ELAG program. Behav Res Methods Instrum 15:530–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Blurton-Jones NB (1968) Observations and experiments on causation of threat displays of the great tit (Parus major). Anim Behav Monogr 1:73–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossema I, Burgler RR (1980) Communication during monocular and binocular looking in European jays. Behaviour 74:274–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury TN, Fincham FD (1991) The analysis of sequence in social interaction. In: Gilbert DG, Conley JJ (eds) Personality, social skills, and psychopathology: an individual differences approach. Plenum Press, New York (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Caryl PG (1979) Communication by agonistic displays: what can games theory contribute to ethology? Behaviour 68:136–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Caryl PG (1982) Animal signals: a reply to Hinde. Anim Behav 30:240–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen JM (1966) Reduction in ambiguity through ritualization. Phil Trans R Soc Lond (B) 251:363–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 282–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingle HA (1969) Statistical and information analysis of aggressive communication in the mantis shrimp, Gonodactylus bredeni Manning. Anim Behav 17:561–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunham DW (1966) Agonistic behaviour in captive rose-breasted grosbeaks, Pheucticus ludovicianus (L.). Behaviour 27:160–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Enquist M (1985) Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Anim Behav 33:1152–1161

    Google Scholar 

  • Enquist M, Plane E, Roed J (1985) Aggressive communication in fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) competing for food. Anim Behav 33:1007–1020

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen AJ (1986) Fighting behaviour in bald eagles: a test of game theory. Ecology 67:787–797

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward JL, Gillett WH, Stout JF (1977) Aggressive communication by Larus glaucescens. Part V. Orientation and sequence of behaviour. Behaviour 62:236–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazlett BA, Bossert WH (1965) A statistical analysis of the aggressive communication system of some hermit crabs. Anim Behav 13:357–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinde RA (1981) Animal signals: ethological and games-theory approaches are not incompatible. Anim Behav 29:535–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1979) Game theory and the evolution of behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 205:475–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan M (1955) Some aspects of reproductive behaviour in the blackheaded gull (Larus r. ridibundus L.) and related species. Behaviour [Suppl] 4:1–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DA (1984) Communication of intentions in agonistic contexts by the pigeon guillemot, Cepphus columba. Behaviour 88:145–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton D (1986) Communication by agonistic displays: 11. Perceived information and the definition of agonistic displays. Behaviour 99:157–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton D, Caryl PG (1986) Communication by agonistic displays: I. Variation in information content between samples. Behaviour 98:213–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Popp JW (1987a) Risk and effectiveness in the use of agonistic displays by American goldfinches. Behaviour 103:141–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Popp JW (1987b) Agonistic communication among wintering purple finches. Wilson Bull 99:97–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhijn van JG (1980) Communication by agonistic displays: a discussion. Behaviour 74:284–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Richdale LE (1941) The erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) Buller. Emu 41:25–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett GP (1979) The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In: Osofsky JD (ed) Handbook of infant development. Wiley, New York, pp 623–649

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett GP, Holm R, Crowley C, Henkins A (1979) A FORTRAN program for lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction data. Behav Res Methods Instrum 11:366–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith WJ (1977) The behaviour of communicating. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes AW (1962a) Agonistic behaviour among blue tits at a winter feeding station. Behaviour 19:118–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes AW (1962b) The comparative ethology of great, blue, marsh and coal tits at a winter feeding station. Behaviour 19:208–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen N (1959) Comparative studies of the behaviour of gulls (Laridae): a progress report. Behaviour 15:1–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas JR (1988) Acoustic displays facilitate courtship in little blue penguins, Eudyptula minor. Anim Behav 26:366–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas JR (1990a) Intraspecific variation in social repertoires: evidence from cave- and burrow-dwelling little blue penguins. Behaviour 115:63–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas JR (1990b) An analysis of communication during the aggressive interactions of little blue penguins. In: Davis LS, Darby JT (eds) Penguin biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 345–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas JR (1991) Do little blue penguins signal their intentions during aggressive intentions with strangers? Anim Behav 41:375–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi A (1977) Reliability in communication systems and the evolution of altruism. In: Stonehouse B, Perrins MC (eds) Evolutionary ecology. Macmillan, London, pp 253–259

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waas, J.R. The risks and benefits of signalling aggressive motivation: a study of cave-dwelling little blue penguins. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29, 139–146 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166489

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166489

Keywords

Navigation