Using knowledge from human research to improve understanding of contest theory and contest dynamics

Abstract

Our understanding of animal contests and the factors that affect contest dynamics and decisions stems from a long and prosperous collaboration between empiricists and theoreticians. Over the last two decades, however, theoretical predictions regarding the factors that affect individual decisions before, during and after a contest are becoming increasingly difficult to test empirically. Extremely large sample sizes are necessary to experimentally test the nuanced theoretical assumptions surrounding how information is used by animals during a contest, how context changes the information used, and how individuals change behaviour as a result of both the information available and the context in which the information is acquired. In this review, we discuss how the investigation of contests in humans through the collaboration of biologists and psychologists may advance contest theory and dynamics in general. We argue that a long and productive history exploring human behaviour and psychology combined with technological advancements provide a unique opportunity to manipulate human perception during contests and collect unbiased data, allowing more targeted examinations of particular aspects of contest theory (e.g. winner/loser effects, information use as a function of age). We hope that our perspective provides the impetus for many future collaborations between biologists and psychologists.

Humans as a model for understanding biological fundamentals

“…While this convincingly shows how methods and concepts developed to gain a better understanding of human biology can be applied to other species, it does not answer the arguably more controversial question of whether human data can provide insights into the biology of other species. Several of the authors in this special answer also this question with a resounding 'yes': for example, Kasumovic & Blake [29] make the case that when it comes to the study of human contest behaviour, the adoption of tools developed in psychology has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of contest behaviour and dynamics, not only in humans, but also in species that are not amenable to these methods. Others were positive, but with caveats.…”

“…This raises an intriguing problem: do those aspects that make humans such a good model system, such as our ability to ask them questions or to provide them a relatively complex task, at the same time limit their general relevance as a model species (see e.g. Kasumovic & Blake [29])? Or, as both Wilson et al [31] and Bshary & Raihani [27] argue, even if humans are unique in terms of their mating system and degree of cooperation, respectively, should we strive towards understanding all variation, including the extremes?…”

“…Several of the authors in this special answer also this question with a resounding 'yes': for example, Kasumovic & Blake [29] make the case that when it comes to the study of human contest behaviour, the adoption of tools developed in psychology has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of contest behaviour and dynamics, not only in humans, but also in species that are not amenable to these methods. Others were positive, but with caveats.…”

“…Kasumovic & Blake [29])? Or, as both Wilson et al [31] and Bshary & Raihani [27] argue, even if humans are unique in terms of their mating system and degree of cooperation, respectively, should we strive towards understanding all variation, including the extremes?…”

Humans as model organisms

“…A number of the papers in the special issue mention this advantage: experimenters can find out not just how subjects act, but also their views on why they made the choices they did. The most systematic exploration of this difference was that of Kasumovic et al, in arguing for the advantages of humans as a lever to improve contest theory [45]. Animal contests are a classic domain of the application of costly signalling theory.…”