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.
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
Altmann J (1974) Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267
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
Andersson M (1976) Social behaviour and communication in the great skua. Behaviour 58:40–77
Andersson M (1980) Why are there so many threat displays? J Theor Biol 86:773–781
Bakeman R (1983) Computing lag sequential statistics: the ELAG program. Behav Res Methods Instrum 15:530–535
Blurton-Jones NB (1968) Observations and experiments on causation of threat displays of the great tit (Parus major). Anim Behav Monogr 1:73–158
Bossema I, Burgler RR (1980) Communication during monocular and binocular looking in European jays. Behaviour 74:274–283
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)
Caryl PG (1979) Communication by agonistic displays: what can games theory contribute to ethology? Behaviour 68:136–169
Caryl PG (1982) Animal signals: a reply to Hinde. Anim Behav 30:240–244
Cullen JM (1966) Reduction in ambiguity through ritualization. Phil Trans R Soc Lond (B) 251:363–374
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
Dingle HA (1969) Statistical and information analysis of aggressive communication in the mantis shrimp, Gonodactylus bredeni Manning. Anim Behav 17:561–575
Dunham DW (1966) Agonistic behaviour in captive rose-breasted grosbeaks, Pheucticus ludovicianus (L.). Behaviour 27:160–173
Enquist M (1985) Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Anim Behav 33:1152–1161
Enquist M, Plane E, Roed J (1985) Aggressive communication in fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) competing for food. Anim Behav 33:1007–1020
Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546
Hansen AJ (1986) Fighting behaviour in bald eagles: a test of game theory. Ecology 67:787–797
Hayward JL, Gillett WH, Stout JF (1977) Aggressive communication by Larus glaucescens. Part V. Orientation and sequence of behaviour. Behaviour 62:236–276
Hazlett BA, Bossert WH (1965) A statistical analysis of the aggressive communication system of some hermit crabs. Anim Behav 13:357–373
Hinde RA (1981) Animal signals: ethological and games-theory approaches are not incompatible. Anim Behav 29:535–542
Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70
Maynard Smith J (1974) The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. J Theor Biol 47:209–221
Maynard Smith J (1979) Game theory and the evolution of behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 205:475–488
Maynard Smith J, Parker GA (1976) The logic of asymmetric contests. Anim Behav 24:159–175
Moynihan M (1955) Some aspects of reproductive behaviour in the blackheaded gull (Larus r. ridibundus L.) and related species. Behaviour [Suppl] 4:1–201
Nelson DA (1984) Communication of intentions in agonistic contexts by the pigeon guillemot, Cepphus columba. Behaviour 88:145–187
Paton D (1986) Communication by agonistic displays: 11. Perceived information and the definition of agonistic displays. Behaviour 99:157–175
Paton D, Caryl PG (1986) Communication by agonistic displays: I. Variation in information content between samples. Behaviour 98:213–239
Popp JW (1987a) Risk and effectiveness in the use of agonistic displays by American goldfinches. Behaviour 103:141–156
Popp JW (1987b) Agonistic communication among wintering purple finches. Wilson Bull 99:97–100
Rhijn van JG (1980) Communication by agonistic displays: a discussion. Behaviour 74:284–293
Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225
Richdale LE (1941) The erect-crested penguin (Eudyptes sclateri) Buller. Emu 41:25–53
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
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
Smith WJ (1977) The behaviour of communicating. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA
Stokes AW (1962a) Agonistic behaviour among blue tits at a winter feeding station. Behaviour 19:118–138
Stokes AW (1962b) The comparative ethology of great, blue, marsh and coal tits at a winter feeding station. Behaviour 19:208–218
Tinbergen N (1959) Comparative studies of the behaviour of gulls (Laridae): a progress report. Behaviour 15:1–70
Waas JR (1988) Acoustic displays facilitate courtship in little blue penguins, Eudyptula minor. Anim Behav 26:366–371
Waas JR (1990a) Intraspecific variation in social repertoires: evidence from cave- and burrow-dwelling little blue penguins. Behaviour 115:63–99
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
Waas JR (1991) Do little blue penguins signal their intentions during aggressive intentions with strangers? Anim Behav 41:375–382
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166489