Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on May 11, 2006
Behavioral Ecology 2006 17(4):597-605; doi:10.1093/beheco/ark008
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Victory displays: a game-theoretic analysis
a Department of Mathematics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4510, USA and b Department of Biology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada
Address correspondence to M. Mesterton-Gibbons. E-mail: mesterto{at}math.fsu.edu.
Two rationales have been proposed verbally for the function of victory displays, which are performed by the winners of contests but not by the losers. The "advertising" rationale is that victory displays are attempts to communicate victory to other members of a social group that do not pay attention to contests or cannot otherwise identify the winner. The "browbeating" rationale is that victory displays are attempts to decrease the probability that the loser of a contest will initiate a future contest with the same individual. We formally explore the logic of these rationales with game-theoretic models. The models show that both rationales are logically sound; however, all other things being equal, the intensity of victory displays will be highest through advertising in groups where the reproductive advantage of dominance is low and highest through browbeating in groups where the reproductive advantage of dominance is high.
Key words: bystander effects, game theory, signaling, victory displays.