Procedurally related differences in the aggressive behavior ofBetta splendens (Regan)

Abstract

The agonistic behaviors of male Betta splendens (Regan) were studied during both mutually viewing and mutually caged encounters in an investigation of differences between these types of encounters. With the pairings of animals held constant, the experience of prior mutual viewing which produced significant habituation did not significantly alter aggression in subsequent mutually caged encounters. Furthermore, animals which exhibited submissiveness (zero display rates) during mutually caged encounters significantly increased the intensity of aggression during subsequent mutual viewing, while the dominant caged mates decreased the rate of displays. These results were interpreted to mean that mutual viewing produces habituation while mutual caging produces conditioned suppression, and that generalizations from one situation to the other may therefore be unwarranted.On the basis of Simpson's (1968) findings, Peeke and Peeke (1970) have criticized the use of mirror images as releasing stimuli in the study of Betta splendens (Siamese fighting fish). They suggest that the sequential and spatial relationships which characterize Betta aggressive behavior outside of the laboratory would be for the most part precluded by the use of mirror images. This argument may be extended to include not only the obvious case of models as agonistic stimuli, but also to the mutual viewing (MV) technique in which animals are separated by a transparent screen. At first, the MV technique would appear to be a more realistic analog of the natural situation, since it permits the establishment of some sequential relationships among agonistic behaviors, but separation by a glass screen would prevent the occurrence of primary aversive stimulation (pain) which results from strikes and tail beatings among mutually caged B. splendens. Furthermore, the absence of such attacks would preclude the establishment of sequential relationships between attack and other agonistic behaviors. For these reasons, the validity of generalizations from MV to mutual caging (MC) conditions would appear to be questionable.In addition to the questionable validity of generalization from MV to Me conditions, there is some question about the use of mutual viewing as a technique. Typically, the MV procedure involves the use of two animals, a test fish and a stimulus fish, separated by a transparent screen. The display rate of the test fish is generally ignored. The finding of sequential relationships (Simpson, 1968) between the display of mutually responding B. splendens and the indication of positive correlations between the rates of these displays (Gallagher, Herz, & Peeke, 1972, p. 364) strongly suggests that the display rates of the test and stimulus fishes are interdependent.Thus, any interpretation which may have been based upon observations of a test fish would have been drawn without consideration of how these observations might have been modulated by the stimulus fish. The point is that aggression in an unrestricted encounter apparently involves the physical inter...

Social organization and the maintenance of aggressive behavior in community-housed male Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens)

“…Display behaviors do wane significantly for specific fish; significant decreases were observed for the top-and one midranking male. These results are consistent with Lobb and McCain's (1976) findings in emphasizing the differences between actual combat and mutual viewing procedures. Combat situations involve both visual exposure and the consequences of aggressing (as in the present studies), whereas mutual viewing situations preclude aversive stimulation.…”

“…The decrease in aggressive behavior observed following such visual exposure, however, does not generalize to situations involving physical combat (Lobb & McCain, 1976;Meliska & Meliska, 1976). The decrease in displaying may be stimulus specific (Baenninger & Mattleman, 1973;Klein, Figler, & Peeke, 1976), or it may reflect the lack of aversive consequences inherent in the manner of stimulation (Lobb & McCain, 1976). Indeed, fish exposed to mirrors, models, and views of live conspecifics can neither attack, elude, nor drive their opponents away.…”

“…Lobb and McCain (1976) reported a complete waning of aggressive behavior among submissive fish following four lO-min paired encounters, but failed to find a corresponding decrease among their more dominant opponents. These paired encounters, however, may still present an artificial situation, since confrontation is forced and the ability of the loser to flee is limited to the confines of a small testing chamber.…”

Effects of prior social experience on agonistic responding by Siamese fighting fish (Betta splendens)

“…Prior social experience has been operationally defined in a number of ways, including dominant and subordinate roles resulting from paired encounters (Baenninger, 1968(Baenninger, ,1970Lobb & McCain, 1976;Meliska, Meliska, Hoyenga, Hoyenga, & Ward, 1975), prior visual experience with a conspecific (Meliska & Meliska, 1976;Miley & Burack, 1977), and visual and combat experience with responsive or passive conspecifics and nonconspecifics (Johnson & Johnson, 1973).…”

“…For example, dominant fish perform operant tasks for mirror reinforcement at a high level, whereas subordinate fish appear to be less inclined to view their mirror images (Baenninger, 1970). Additionally, subordinate fish cease to attack and display to their opponents once they have submitted (Baenninger, 1968;Lobb & McCain, 1976). The behavior of dominant fish in subsequent paired encounters, however, is not so clear.…”