Winner and loser effects

Last updated
A fish from the respective genus Rivulus Mangrove rivulus.jpg
A fish from the respective genus Rivulus

The winner and loser effect is an aggression phenomenon in which the winner effect is the increased probability that an animal will win future aggressive interactions after experiencing previous wins, while the loser effect is the increased probability that an animal will lose future aggressive interactions after experiencing previous losses. [1] Overall these effects can either increase or decrease an animals aggressive behaviour, depending on what effect affects the species of concern. [1] Animals such as Agkistrodon contortrix , Rivulus marmoratus, and Sula nebouxii show either both or one of these effects. [2]

Contents

The outcomes of winner and loser effects help develop and structure hierarchies in nature and is used to support the game theory model of aggression. [3]

Causation

A theory underlying the causation of the winner and loser effect deals with an animals perception on its own and other members resource holding potential. [4] [5] [6] Essentially if an animal perceives that it has a high resource holding potential then it considers itself to be a dominant member of an intraspecific community. [4] If an animal perceives that it has a low resource holding potential then it considers itself to be a less dominant member. [4] This perception of resource holding potential is further enhanced or disrupted when aggressive challenges arise. [4] [5] If an animal wins an encounter then its perception of its own resource holding potential increases, just as if an animal loses, its perception of its resource holding potential decreases. [4] [5] Animals, regardless of size, with a higher perception of resource holding potential are more likely to initiate aggressive behaviour to maintain their dominance within a community. Overall the larger the difference between the perception of two fighting animals resource holding potential, the higher the chance of the animal with the higher resource holding potential of winning the encounter. [5] Based on this theory an animal who assumes itself as a high resource holding individual is likely to be a dominant/aggressive member while an animal who assumes self as a low resource holding individual is likely to be a submissive/non-aggressive member of a community. [2]

The reason an animal will accept its dominant or submissive position in a hierarchy is because of the game theory model of aggression. [2] Based on the hawk and dove game, being a hawk (aggressive individual) or dove (submissive individual) can be beneficial depending on the fitness associated with the trait. Game theory discusses a frequency-dependent model where both traits (aggressive vs submissive) can exist when the frequency of each meets an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). [2]

Hormonal stimulation

In some animals winner and loser effects have been shown to cause hormonal differences in blood plasma. [2] Hormones like corticosterone are found to be higher in animals experiencing loser effects than those experiencing winner effects. [2] Corticosterone is a stress hormone and is likely raised due to the implications of a loss in animals experiencing the loser effect. Some researchers even suggest that this increased level of corticosterone caused by the loser effect inhibits regions of the brain involved in learning and memory, but no formal literature has supported the hypothesis that winner and loser effects directly cause this. [2] An example of this increase in corticosterone following a loss is seen in the copperhead snakes. [2]

Testosterone is another compound whose concentration within the body are affected by winner and loser effects. [7] Research conducted using humans show that after completing a competitive task against another team, the winning team's testosterone goes up, while the losing team's testosterone goes down. [7] It also showed in a group setting that the team member who was the top-scoring player or did the most work received the highest boost in testosterone. [7]

Importance of previous experience

Winner and loser effects are driven by an organism's previous experiences, typically in an aggressive context. [8] The most recent fighting experience has the greatest effect on the organism, as testing done on Rivulus marmoratus showed individuals who had lost their most recent encounters (LW) had a higher probability of winning their next encounter than that of a fish who had lost their last encounter but won the one before that (WL). [8] The literature also showed that encounters that happened two times before an aggressive event can affect the strength of the winner or loser effect. [8] This was shown as species who won their last fight, but lost the one before that (LW), had a higher probability of winning their next fight than that of a fish that lost their last encounter but won the interaction before that (WL). [8]

Hierarchy formation

Xiphophorus helleri, also known as the Green Swordtail Xiphophorus helleri 03.jpg
Xiphophorus helleri , also known as the Green Swordtail

Winner and loser effects also can be attributed to the formation of hierarchies. [9] A study done on Xiphophorus helleri , also known as the green swordtail had shown that individuals who won were more likely to assume alpha or higher ranked positions in a hierarchy, while individuals who lost were more likely to assume omega or lower ranked positions in a hierarchy. [9] Neutral individuals who have little to no experience with aggression interactions fall in an intermediate position between winners and losers forming the Winner-Neutral-Loser (W-N-L) hierarchy. [9]

Hierarchies can also be affected by the strength of the winner or loser effects acting upon it. [2] [6] Winner effects alone typically produce linear hierarchies where organism A wins all encounters, organism B wins all encounters except against organism A, organism C loses all encounters except against organism D, and organism D loses all encounters. [2] [6] This linear relationship is typically shown as (A > B > C > D). [2] Loser effects unlike winner effects do not show this linear relationship because animals experiencing loser effects do not fight which makes it difficult to assign a position in a hierarchy. [6]

Examples

Loser effects in copperhead snakes

Agkistrodon contortrix, also known as the Copperhead Snake Copperhead-snake-wildlife 8 - West Virginia - ForestWander.jpg
Agkistrodon contortrix , also known as the Copperhead Snake

Copperhead snakes rely on aggressive behaviours to fight for a prospective mate. [2] Since aggressive behaviours in this species are selected for reproduction, winner and loser effects could have an effect on these aggressive behaviours and therefore the animals reproductive success. Male copperhead snakes, who have not had an aggressive interaction in months, when put in a situation to fight for a female is likely to win an encounter on the basis that his body size is larger than that of the other fighter. [10]

When copperhead snakes are tested to see if winner effects affect their ability to win an encounter it was found that there was no winner effect. [10] This was attributed to winners to always accept challenges from other males (even if larger), and were found to be more excitable because of this. [10] This indicated that previous experience in winners does not increase their ability to reproduce as they are just as likely to lose a fight if a snake of a larger size challenges them. [10]

Copperhead snakes were also tested to see if loser effects were present. This was done by first placing two neutral snakes of about the same size in an arena, and then placing a one-time loser snake against a neutral snake so that the results could be compared. It was found that loser effects were present as snakes who had lost previous encounters were more likely to lose again. [10] The losing effect in the copperhead snake is so strong that even in encounters where the loser snake was 10% larger, they would always lose if they had more than one previous loss. [10]

Winner and loser effects in blue-footed boobies

Sula nebouxii, also known as the Blue-Footed Booby Sula nebouxii -Santa Cruz, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador-8 (1).jpg
Sula nebouxii, also known as the Blue-Footed Booby

Blue-footed boobies show a frequency-dependent dominant-submissive behavioural strategy. [11] In these birds, the nestlings develop one of the following strategies, either dominant or submissive. If first born chicks showed aggression early on towards its siblings then it likely became a dominant member, while if the chick was non-aggressive early on, then it likely adopted the submissive strategy. [11] Winner and loser effects are seen in this species due to the behavioural strategy.

Winner effects were shown when established dominant chicks were placed against non-experienced chicks in a study by Drummond. [11] Dominant chicks were seen to be more likely to win an aggressive encounter with a non-experienced chick, even when the non-experienced chick was larger than the dominant chick. This was attributed to established dominant chicks being 6 times more aggressive than non-experienced chicks due to having previous wins. [11]

Loser effects were shown when established submissive chicks were placed against non-experienced chicks in the same study by Drummond. [11] Submissive chicks were seen to be less likely to win an aggressive encounter with a non-experienced chick, even when the non-experienced chick was smaller than the submissive chick. This was attributed to established submissive chicks being 7 times less aggressive than non-experienced chicks due to having previous losses. [11]

This experiment performed by Drummond was done for 10 days and showed that over the length of the study winner effects were less powerful over time, while the strength of loser effects remained constant. [11]

Winner and loser effects in humans

Studies have also found evidence of winner effect in humans, typically using sport competitions. A study looking at tennis matches has found that a very close win or loss in a set has a substantial effect on the chance to win the next set. [12] The study focused on situations where players end up winning or losing the first set by a very small margin (two points at the end of a tie-break lasting more than 20 points). It finds that the winner of the first set has 60% chances of winning the second set, compared to 40% for the loser of the first set. Such an effect is only observed for male players. Another study found that players winning in tennis experience an increase in testosterone level while losers experience a decrease. [13] The famous hot-hand effect in basketball has also been found to exist: players who are successful at scoring during a match increase their likelihood to shoot successfully later on. [14]

Winner and loser effects in plants

As humans disturb old-growth forests, they are creating more forest edges and gaps. [15] The removal of these trees provide less shading and allow for more sunlight. [15] Species that prefer the shaded environment may not be adapted to survive in the increased sunlight. [15] Due to the increased sunlight, its possible for sunlight-adapted species to thrive in these area and out compete the shaded plants. [15] In this event, the shaded plants are the losers, while the sunlight-adapted plants are the winners. [15] There are significantly more plants that are losers than winners. [16] While the rate of speciation increases in the winners, it is far outpaced by the extinction of the losers. [17] The projected effects of plant loss on biodiversity loss are more significant than any other trophic level. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aggression</span> Social interaction aiming at inflicting damage or unpleasantness

Aggression is overt or covert, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other harm upon another individual; although it can be channeled into creative and practical outlets for some. It may occur either reactively or without provocation. In humans, aggression can be caused by various triggers, from frustration due to blocked goals to feeling disrespected. Human aggression can be classified into direct and indirect aggression; whilst the former is characterized by physical or verbal behavior intended to cause harm to someone, the latter is characterized by behavior intended to harm the social relations of an individual or group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corticosterone</span> Chemical compound

Corticosterone, also known as 17-deoxycortisol and 11β,21-dihydroxyprogesterone, is a 21-carbon steroid hormone of the corticosteroid type produced in the cortex of the adrenal glands. It is of minor importance in humans, except in the very rare case of congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 17α-hydroxylase deficiency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dominance hierarchy</span> Type of social hierarchy

In biology, a dominance hierarchy is a type of social hierarchy that arises when members of animal social groups interact, creating a ranking system. A dominant higher-ranking individual is sometimes called an alpha, and a submissive lower-ranking individual a beta. Different types of interactions can result in dominance depending on the species, including ritualized displays of aggression or direct physical violence. In social living groups, members are likely to compete for access to limited resources and mating opportunities. Rather than fighting each time they meet, relative rank is established between individuals of the same sex, with higher-ranking individuals often gaining more access to resources and mates. Based on repetitive interactions, a social order is created that is subject to change each time a dominant animal is challenged by a subordinate one.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychological adaptation</span>

A psychological adaptation is a functional, cognitive or behavioral trait that benefits an organism in its environment. Psychological adaptations fall under the scope of evolved psychological mechanisms (EPMs), however, EPMs refer to a less restricted set. Psychological adaptations include only the functional traits that increase the fitness of an organism, while EPMs refer to any psychological mechanism that developed through the processes of evolution. These additional EPMs are the by-product traits of a species’ evolutionary development, as well as the vestigial traits that no longer benefit the species’ fitness. It can be difficult to tell whether a trait is vestigial or not, so some literature is more lenient and refers to vestigial traits as adaptations, even though they may no longer have adaptive functionality. For example, xenophobic attitudes and behaviors, some have claimed, appear to have certain EPM influences relating to disease aversion, however, in many environments these behaviors will have a detrimental effect on a person's fitness. The principles of psychological adaptation rely on Darwin's theory of evolution and are important to the fields of evolutionary psychology, biology, and cognitive science.

In biology, resource holding potential (RHP) is the ability of an animal to win an all-out fight if one were to take place. The term was coined by Geoff Parker to disambiguate physical fighting ability from the motivation to persevere in a fight. Originally the term used was 'resource holding power', but 'resource holding potential' has come to be preferred. The latter emphasis on 'potential' serves as a reminder that the individual with greater RHP does not always prevail.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common side-blotched lizard</span> Species of lizard

The common side-blotched lizard is a species of side-blotched lizard in the family Phrynosomatidae. The species is native to dry regions of the western United States and northern Mexico. It is notable for having a unique form of polymorphism wherein each of the three different male morphs utilizes a different strategy in acquiring mates. The three morphs compete against each other following a pattern of rock paper scissors, where one morph has advantages over another but is outcompeted by the third.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intraspecific competition</span>

Intraspecific competition is an interaction in population ecology, whereby members of the same species compete for limited resources. This leads to a reduction in fitness for both individuals, but the more fit individual survives and is able to reproduce. By contrast, interspecific competition occurs when members of different species compete for a shared resource. Members of the same species have rather similar requirements for resources, whereas different species have a smaller contested resource overlap, resulting in intraspecific competition generally being a stronger force than interspecific competition.

<i>Urosaurus ornatus</i> Species of lizard

Urosaurus ornatus, commonly known as the ornate tree lizard, is a species of lizard in the family Phrynosomatidae. The species is native to the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. The species, which was formerly called simply the "tree lizard", has been used to study physiological changes during the fight-or-flight response as related to stress and aggressive competition. Its life history and costs of reproduction have been documented in field populations in New Mexico and Arizona. This species has been fairly well studied because of its interesting variation in throat color in males that can correlate with different reproductive strategies,

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agonistic behaviour</span> Any social behaviour related to fighting

Agonistic behaviour is any social behaviour related to fighting. The term has broader meaning than aggressive behaviour because it includes threats, displays, retreats, placation, and conciliation. The term "agonistic behaviour" was first implemented by J.P Scott and Emil Fredericson in 1951 in their paper "The Causes of Fighting in Mice and Rats" in Physiological Zoology.Agonistic behaviour is seen in many animal species because resources including food, shelter, and mates are often limited.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social defeat</span>

Social defeat is a concept used in the study of the physiological and behavioral effects of hostile interactions among either conspecific animals, or humans, in either a dyadic or in a group-individual context, potentially generating very significant consequences in terms of control over resources, access to mates and social positions.

<i>Neolamprologus pulcher</i> Species of fish

Neolamprologus pulcher is a species of cichlid endemic to Lake Tanganyika where it prefers locations with plenty of sedimentation. The common names for N. pulcher include daffodil cichlid, fairy cichlid, princess of Zambia and lyretail cichlid. This species can reach a length of 10 centimetres (3.9 in) TL. It can also be found in the aquarium trade.

Male-male intrasexual competition occurs when two males of the same species compete for the opportunity to mate with a female. Sexually dimorphic traits, size, sex ratio, and the social situation may all play a role in the effects male-male competition has on the reproductive success of a male and the mate choice of a female. Larger males tend to win male-male conflicts due to their sheer strength and ability to ward off other males from taking over their females. For instance, in the fly Dryomyza anilis, size shows the strongest correlation to the outcome of male-male conflicts over resources like territory and females.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dominance signal</span> Type of animal communication

A dominance signal is used in a dominance hierarchy or pecking order to indicate an animal's dominance. Dominance signals are a type of internal environment signal that demonstrate the signalers attributes [2]. Dominance signals are necessary for several species for mating, maintaining social hierarchies and defending territories Dominance signals also provide information about an animals fitness. Animals have developed conflict management strategies to reduce frequency of aggressive incidents in competitive matters. This evolution is the basis of dominance signals[3].

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bite inhibition</span>

Bite inhibition, sometimes referred to as a soft mouth, is a behavior in carnivorans whereby the animal learns to moderate the strength of its bite. It is an important factor in the socialization of pets.

Toe pecking, an abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity, occurs when one bird pecks the toes of another using its beak. This behaviour has been reported in hens and ostriches. Studies have shown that hens exposed to toe pecking have significantly enlarged adrenal glands, indicating increased physiological stress. Hens exposed to toe pecking will step off a raised platform more quickly than control hens, possibly suggesting a heightened fear of elevation. They have also been reported to show depressive behaviour when afflicted by toe-pecking. The act of toe pecking leads to open wounds which are viable for infection and disease to develop. In severe forms, toe pecking can be classified as a cannibalistic behaviour and has been reported as a cause of mortality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannibalism in poultry</span>

Cannibalism in poultry is the act of one individual of a poultry species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food. It commonly occurs in flocks of domestic hens reared for egg production, although it can also occur in domestic turkeys, pheasants and other poultry species. Poultry create a social order of dominance known as pecking order. When pressure occurs within the flock, pecking can increase in aggression and escalate to cannibalism. Cannibalism can occur as a consequence of feather pecking which has caused denuded areas and bleeding on a bird's skin. Cannibalism can cause large mortality rates within the flock and large decreases in production due to the stress it causes. Vent pecking, sometimes called 'cloacal cannibalism', is considered to be a separate form of cannibalistic pecking as this occurs in well-feathered birds and only the cloaca is targeted. There are several causes that can lead to cannibalism such as: light and overheating, crowd size, nutrition, injury/death, genetics and learned behaviour. Research has been conducted to attempt to understand why poultry engage in this behaviour, as it is not totally understood. There are known methods of control to reduce cannibalism such as crowd size control, beak trimming, light manipulation, perches, selective genetics and eyewear.

A behaviour mutation is a genetic mutation that alters genes that control the way in which an organism behaves, causing their behavioural patterns to change.

Animals have many different tactics for defending themselves, depending on the severity of the threat they are encountering. Stages of threat vary along a spectrum referred to as the "predatory imminence continuum", spanning from low-risk (pre-encounter) to high-risk (interaction) threats. The main assumption of the predatory imminence continuum is that as threat levels increase, defensive response strategies change. During the pre-encounter period, an animal may engage in activities like exploration or foraging. But if the animal senses that a predator is nearby, the animal may begin to express species specific defense reactions such as freezing in an attempt to avoid detection by the predator. However, in situations where a threat is imminent, once the animal is detected by its predator, freezing may no longer be the optimal behaviour for survival. At this point, the animal enters the circa-strike phase, where its behaviour will transition from passive freezing to active flight, or even attack if escape is not possible.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Begging in animals</span>

Begging in animals is when an animal solicits being given resources by another animal. This is usually a young animal soliciting food from their parents, brood hosts or other adults. However, the resource is sometimes non-food related or may be solicited by adult animals. Begging behavior is most widely studied in birds, however, mammals, amphibians, and invertebrates perform begging displays. Generally in food solicitation, begging behavior is instinctive, although in some instances it is learned.

Social rank theory provides an evolutionary paradigm that locates affiliative and ranking structures at the core of many psychological disorders. In this context, displays of submission signals to dominant individuals that subordinate group members are not a threat to their rank within the social hierarchy. This helps to achieve social cohesion. According to social rank theory, anxiety and depression are natural experiences that are common to all mammalian species. It is the pathological exaggeration of anxiety and depression that contributes to psychological disorders.

References

  1. 1 2 Hsu, Yuying; Earley, Ryan L; Wolf, Larry L (2005). "Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: Mechanisms and contest outcomes". Biological Reviews. 81 (1): 33–74. doi:10.1017/S146479310500686X. PMID   16460581. S2CID   14284236.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dugatkin, Lee Alan (2014). Principles of animal behavior. New York: W.W. Norton. pp. 497–501. ISBN   978-0-393-92045-1.
  3. Hock, Karlo; Huber, Robert (2009). "Models of winner and loser effects: A cost–benefit analysis". Behaviour. 146 (1): 69–87. doi:10.1163/156853908X390931.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Mesterton-Gibbons, Michael; Dugatkin, Lee Alan (1995). "Toward a theory of dominance hierarchies: Effects of assessment, group size, and variation in fighting ability". Behavioral Ecology. 6 (4): 416–23. doi:10.1093/beheco/6.4.416.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Mesterton-Gibbons, Michael (1999). "On the evolution of pure winner and loser effects: A game-theoretic model". Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. 61 (6): 1151–1186. doi:10.1006/bulm.1999.0137. PMID   17879874. S2CID   26316681.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Dugatkin, Lee Alan (1997). "Winner and loser effects and the structure of dominance hierarchies". Behavioral Ecology. 8 (6): 583–7. doi: 10.1093/beheco/8.6.583 .
  7. 1 2 3 Robertson, Ian H. (2012). The Winner Effect: The Neuroscience of Success and Failure. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. ISBN   978-1-250-00167-2.[ page needed ]
  8. 1 2 3 4 Hsu, Yuying; Wolf, Larry L (1999). "The winner and loser effect: Integrating multiple experiences". Animal Behaviour. 57 (4): 903–910. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.1049 . PMID   10202098. S2CID   1992238.
  9. 1 2 3 Dugatkin, L. A; Druen, M (2004). "The social implications of winner and loser effects". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 271 (Suppl 6): S488–9. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2004.0235. PMC   1810114 . PMID   15801612.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Schuett, Gordon W (1997). "Body size and agonistic experience affect dominance and mating success in male copperheads". Animal Behaviour. 54 (1): 213–24. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0417. PMID   9268451. S2CID   38570945.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Drummond, Hugh (1998). "Dominance between booby nestlings involves winner and loser effects". Animal Behaviour. 55 (6): 1669–76. doi:10.1006/anbe.1997.0714. PMID   9642010. S2CID   46518842.
  12. Page, Lionel; Coates, John (2017). "Winner and loser effects in human competitions. Evidence from equally matched tennis players" (PDF). Evolution and Human Behavior. 38 (4): 530. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.02.003.
  13. Booth, Alan; Shelley, Greg; Mazur, Allan; Tharp, Gerry; Kittok, Roger (1989). "Testosterone, and winning and losing in human competition". Hormones and Behavior. 23 (4): 556–71. doi:10.1016/0018-506X(89)90042-1. PMID   2606468. S2CID   36664488.
  14. Miller, Joshua Benjamin; Sanjurjo, Adam (2014). "A Cold Shower for the Hot Hand Fallacy". doi:10.2139/ssrn.2450479. S2CID   54218324.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 "Figure 5: Winner and loser species over a 13-year study period in PNZMAES". dx.doi.org. doi:10.7717/peerj.8885/fig-5 . Retrieved 2022-03-31.
  16. Kress, W. John; Krupnick, Gary A. (2022-03-10). "Lords of the biosphere: Plant winners and losers in the Anthropocene". Plants, People, Planet. 4 (4): 350–366. doi: 10.1002/ppp3.10252 . ISSN   2572-2611. S2CID   247388985.
  17. Gao, Jian-Guo; Liu, Hui; Wang, Ning; Yang, Jing; Zhang, Xiao-Ling (2020-09-16). "Plant extinction excels plant speciation in the Anthropocene". BMC Plant Biology. 20 (1): 430. doi:10.1186/s12870-020-02646-3. ISSN   1471-2229. PMC   7493330 . PMID   32938403.
  18. Borrvall, Charlotte; Ebenman, Bo; Tomas Jonsson, Tomas Jonsson (2001). "Biodiversity lessens the risk of cascading extinction in model food webs". Ecology Letters. 3 (2): 131–136. doi:10.1046/j.1461-0248.2000.00130.x. ISSN   1461-023X.