Are agonistic behavior patterns signals or combat tactics — Or does it matter? Targets as organizing principles of fighting

Pellis, Vivien C.

doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.03.038

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the brown trout (Salmo trutta), submitting animals darken their body colouration more dramatically in turbid water compared to those in clear water, thereby increasing the strength of the signal, presumably to ensure signal transmission in conditions where visual signals are more difficult to perceive (Eaton & Sloman, 2011). Some behaviours that have been identified as submission signals may in fact be avoidance behaviours, potentially with a secondary signalling function (Pellis & Pellis, 2015). Moreover, the function of the same action may differ between species and situations (Pellis & Pellis, 2015).…”

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some behaviours that have been identified as submission signals may in fact be avoidance behaviours, potentially with a secondary signalling function (Pellis & Pellis, 2015). Moreover, the function of the same action may differ between species and situations (Pellis & Pellis, 2015). For example, in house mice, Mus domesticus, rolling on the back does not reduce the likelihood of being bitten and appears to not be a submission signal, unlike some other species, but does help to defend the vulnerable back and rump and facilitates counter-attack and escape (Pellis et al, 1992;Pellis & Pellis, 2015).…”

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the function of the same action may differ between species and situations (Pellis & Pellis, 2015). For example, in house mice, Mus domesticus, rolling on the back does not reduce the likelihood of being bitten and appears to not be a submission signal, unlike some other species, but does help to defend the vulnerable back and rump and facilitates counter-attack and escape (Pellis et al, 1992;Pellis & Pellis, 2015). Thus, careful analysis is required to identify submission signals, particularly where these signals are derived from pre-existing avoidance behaviour (e.g., through ritualisation; Zahavi, 1980).…”

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resulting positional disadvantage (a vulnerability cost; Adams & Mesterton-Gibbons, 1995) may thereby cancel out any potential benefit of a submissive feint. Submission signals are also typically characterized by a cessation of movement (Pellis & Pellis, 2015), which may reduce the ability for the losing animal to counterattack. Thus, certain postures may have evolved as submission signals for the purpose of enforcing signal honesty.…”

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Submission signals in animal groups

Reddon

Ruberto

Reader

2021

Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aggression is costly, and animals have evolved tactics to mitigate these costs. Submission signals are an underappreciated example of such adaptations. Here we review submissive behaviour, with an emphasis on non-primates. We highlight the design of submission signals and how such signals can reduce costs. Animal societies necessitate frequent social interactions, which can increase the probability of conflict. Where maintaining group proximity is essential, animals cannot avoid aggression by fleeing. Mutual interest between group members may also select for efficient conflict avoidance and resolution mechanisms. As a result, submission signals may be especially well developed among group living species, helping social animals to overcome potential costs of recurring conflict that could otherwise counter the benefits of group living. Therefore, submission signalling can be a crucial aspect of social living and is deserving of specific attention within the broader context of social evolution and communication.

show abstract

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Submission Signal Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Submission signals in animal groups

Reddon

Ruberto

Reader

2021

Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is, of course, an empirical question. Incorrect assignment of the level of behavioral relevance can distort research (Bell, 2014;Pellis and Pellis, 2015), so care should be taken to test the effects of behavioral variation at both levels.…”

Section: Insight 3: Functional Hypotheses About Duetting Must Distingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duetting as a Collective Behavior

Logue

Krupp

2016

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mated birds of many species vocalize together, producing duets. Duetting behavior occurs at two levels of organization: the individual level and the pair level. Individuals initiate vocalizations, answer their mates' vocalizations, and control the structure and timing of their own vocalizations. Pairs produce duets that vary with respect to duration, temporal coordination, and phrase-type combinations, among other properties. To make sense of this hierarchical structure, organize duetting research, and identify new avenues of investigation, we advocate a "collective behavior" approach to the study of duets. We critically review key terminology in the duetting literature in light of this approach, and elucidate six insights that emerge from the collective behavior approach: (1) Individual-level behaviors describe pair-level behaviors, but the opposite is not true; (2) The level of organization informs how we test for the rules that govern behavior; (3) Functional hypotheses about duetting must distinguish individual from group characters; (4) Stimulus-response, cybernetics, and entrainment offer alternative hypotheses for the cognitive control of duetting behavior; (5) Avian duetting has the potential to be a model system for the ontogeny of vocal interaction; and (6) The collective behavior approach suggests new avenues of research. Ultimately, we argue that nearly every aspect of duetting research stands to benefit from adopting a collective behavior approach. This approach also has applications to other forms of interactive vocal communication in birds and primates, including humans.

show abstract

What Dyadic Internet Street Fight Videos Can and Cannot Tell Us About the Ethological, Game Theoretic, and Sex‐Differentiated Phenomenology of Human Physical Aggression

Potegal,

Li,

Kim

2024

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Street fight videos on the internet may provide information about little known aspects of human physical aggression, but their reliability is unclear. Analyses of 100 dyadic fight videos addressing ethological, game theoretic and sex‐differentiated questions derived from research on other animals found that prefight verbalizations or gestural signals of nonaggressive or aggressive intent loosely predicted who would strike first and who would win. The head is the preferred strike target. Ordinal severity rankings of different strikes ranged from 1 for spitting to 5 for choking. Half the videos showed briefer, unilateral assaults beginning with one or more high severity strikes, little evidence of escalation and fewer bystander interventions. A quarter of these were sneak attacks. The other videos showed longer fights with reciprocal strikes, some evidence of strike severity escalation and more bystander intervention. Both types were equally injurious. Winner/loser outcomes were reliably identified by postfight behaviors and/or signs of injury. Winners had advantageous prefight resource holding potential (RHP: greater height and/or vigor) significantly more often than losers. Consistent with tendencies for fights to occur between animals of the same sex, there were more male/male and female/female fights and fewer male/female fights than expected from random pairings of men and women in the videos. Female/female fights involved proportionally more hair‐pulling, extended bouts of rapidly repeated strikes and longest durations. Bystanders intervened in over half the videos, attempting to separate fighters or help losers more often than they attacked the loser. Carefully selected internet street fight videos can provide important information.

show abstract

Are agonistic behavior patterns signals or combat tactics — Or does it matter? Targets as organizing principles of fighting

Cited by 19 publications

References 56 publications

Submission signals in animal groups

Submission signals in animal groups

Duetting as a Collective Behavior

What Dyadic Internet Street Fight Videos Can and Cannot Tell Us About the Ethological, Game Theoretic, and Sex‐Differentiated Phenomenology of Human Physical Aggression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About