Abstract: Dominance relationships in primate societies are generally inferred by analyses of agonistic interactions. This aspect of social organization is so striking in macaque and baboon societies that many theoreticians have postulated selective mechanisms operating on the genetic attributes which contribute to high dominance rank. Alpha males were hypothesized to increase their genetic fitness by successfully competing with other males for access to ovulating females. Evidence relevant to these speculations has been mixed. Whereas some investigators found alpha males had near exclusive sexual access to females, others failed to confirm preferential access to ovulating females. Indeed, considerable variability in competition for females existed not only among species, but also among troops of the same species living in different habitats. Further, partner selection was not an exclusive male prerogative; females proved to express active preferences for particular males as sexual partners, and these preferences were not related to high male aggressivity. Alpha males, however, were noted to maintain their positions through social skills as members of a central core or alliance, and high rank was related primarily to seniority. Moreover, alpha males responded actively to challenges to the troop and were judged to contribute significantly to the survival of infants. It was therefore hypothesized that increased genetic fitness related to the increased survival of immature animals in the troop, most of which would already be the offspring of senior (and hence alpha) males. Selection would then be for the social skills leading to successful alliances in troop defense. Such skills might also relate to female partner preferences thus increasing the reproductive effectiveness of alpha males at any point in their careers, including years prior to and following their assumption of alpha rank.

Abstract: The view is examined that the adaptive value of conventional aspects of fighting behaviour is for assessment of relative RHP (resource holding power) of the combatants. Outcomes of aggressive disputes should be decided by each individual's fitness budget available for expenditure during a fight (determined by the fitness difference between adoption of alternative strategies, escalation or withdrawal without escalation) and on the rate of expenditure of the fitness budget if escalation occurs (determined by the RHPs of the combatants). Thus response thresholds for alternative strategies (“assessments”) will be determined by natural selection on a basis of which opponent is likely to expend its fitness budget first, should escalation occur. This “loser” should retreat (before escalation) and the winner should stay in possession of the resource. Many aggressive decisions depend on whether one is a resource holder, or an attacker. Assuming the RHP of the combatants to be equal, there are many instances of fitness pay-off imbalances between holder and attacker which should weight the dispute outcome in favour of one or other opponent by allowing it a greater expendable fitness budget. Usually the weighting favours the holder; the attacker therefore needs a correspondingly higher RHP before it may be expected to win. This is not invariably the case, and much observed data fits the predictions of this sort of model. If assessments are perfect and budget expenditure rates exactly predictable, then there would never seem to be any case for escalation. Escalation can be explained in terms of injury inflictions (expenditures) occurring as discrete events; i.e. as “bouts” won or lost during fighting. Assessment can give only a probabilistic prediction of the outcome of a bout. A simple model is developed to investigate escalation situations. Each combatant assesses relative RHP; this correlates with an absolute probability of winning the next bout (cabs). The stake played for is infliction of loss of RHP and is determined by the fitness budgets of the opponents. (Each individual plays for the withdrawal of its opponent.) This defines a critical probability of winning (ccrit) for each combatant, above which escalation is the favourable strategy (cabs > ccrit) and below which withdrawal is favourable (cabs < ccrit). Escalation should occur only where cabs-ccrit is positive for both combatants. This model gives predictions compatible with the observations, indicating that RHP loss alone can be adequate to explain withdrawal: escalation behaviour. Withdrawal tendency will be increased by low searching costs. Escalations should be restricted to closely matched RHP opponents if RHP disparity is the major imbalance. Outside the “escalation range” of a given individual, the higher RHP individual wins and the lower one loses (i.e. it should withdraw after conventional display). RHP disparity and holder: attacker imbalance should both interact to shape the observed pattern, though their relative importances will depend on species and situation. In some instances selection may favour immediate withdrawal from an occupied territory even without assessment of RHP.

Abstract: What should an individual do if there are no reliable cues to the strength of a competitor when fighting with it for resources? We herein examine the evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) in the hawk-dove game, if the opponent's resource-holding potential (RHP) can only indirectly be inferred from the outcome of past interactions in the population. The strategies we examined include the classical mixed strategy in which no information on past games is utilized, the `imprinting' strategy in which a player increases/decreases its aggressiveness if it wins/loses a game, the `immediate inference' strategy in which a player can infer the strength of those opponents it fought before, and the `transitive inference' strategy in which a player can infer the strength of a new opponent through a third party with which both players have fought before. Invasibility analysis for each pair of strategies revealed that (i) the transitive-inference strategy can always invade the mixed strategy and the imprinting strategy, and itself refuses invasion by these strategies; (ii) the largest advantage for transitive inference is achieved when the number of games played per individual in one generation is small and when the cost of losing an escalated game is large; (iii) the immediate inference, rather than the transitive inference, can be an ESS if the cost of fighting is small; (iv) a strong linear ranking is established in the population of transitive-inference strategists, though it does not perfectly correlate to the ranking by actual RHPs. We found that the advantage of the transitive inference is not in its ability to correct a misassessment (it is actually the worst in doing so), but in the ability of quickly lining up either incorrect or correct assessments to form a linear dominance hierarchy.

Abstract: Animals who live in groups need to divide available resources amongst themselves. This is often achieved by means of a dominance hierarchy, where dominant individuals obtain a larger share of the resources than subordinate individuals. This paper introduces a model of dominance hierarchy formation using a multi-player extension of the classical Hawk-Dove game. Animals play non-independent pairwise games in a Swiss tournament which pairs opponents against those which have performed equally well in the conflict so far, for a fixed number of rounds. Resources are divided according to the number of contests won. The model, and its emergent properties, are discussed in the context of experimental observations.

Abstract: When detecting a predator, some prey animals respond in a counterintuitive fashion by approaching, rather than fleeing, that potential threat of extinction. This seemingly paradoxical behaviour, known aspredator inspection, has been reported for a wide variety of taxa--and therefore can be assumed to be adaptive. However, the view of predator inspection as a paradoxical behaviour rests on two implicit assumptions: (a) initial predator detecting is unambiguous, with no uncertainty in discriminating between hunting and non hunting members of predator species, or members of predator species and unrelated phenomena; (b) the costs of flight are negligible relative to the risk of predation. Upon reflection assumption (a) is not really tenable. Whereas assumption (b) is not consistent with experimental evidence [Godin & Crossman (1994)Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.34,359-366]. Given that predator detection is ambiguous and the costs of flight are not negligible, a prey individual may benefit by a closer approach to the source of the alarming signals, thus improving its assessment of the situation--despite the increased risk of predation. In this paper, the above statement is given rigor by reformulating the problem in game theoretical terms. The results indicate that a prey will minimize its costs by performing predator inspection whenever its degree of certainty regarding predator identification and/or assessment of its intentions is less than a threshold, which is determined by the model's parameters.