Abstract
Animal contest behaviour has been widely studied, yet major knowledge gaps remain concerning the information-gathering and decision-making processes used during encounters. The mutual assessment strategy, where the individual assesses its own fighting ability (Resource Holding Potential, RHP) and compares it to that of its opponent, is least understood. We hypothesise that individuals need experience of agonistic encounters to become proficient at mutual assessment. Pigs (Sus scrofa, n = 316) were contested twice. In between contests, animals did or did not (control) receive intense fighting experience. A substantial proportion of the contests reached an outcome with a clear winner without fighting. Non-escalation was highest in RHP asymmetric dyads of the second contest, irrespective of experience. In contest 1 (no experience) and in contest 2 for the experienced animals, costs increased with loser RHP and where unaffected by winner RHP, suggesting a self-assessment strategy. In contest 2 control dyads, which only had experience of one prior contest, a negative relation between winner RHP and costs suggested mutual assessment during the pre-escalation phase but not during escalated aggression. This reveals that a brief and relatively mild experience can be beneficial in the development of mutual assessment whereas profound experience may result in adoption of a self-assessment strategy.
Highlights
Animal contest behaviour has been widely studied, yet major knowledge gaps remain concerning the information-gathering and decision-making processes used during encounters
To discriminate between mutual assessment and cumulative assessment model (CAM) it is necessary to examine contests in which opponents are matched for resource holding potential (RHP), with CAM predicting a positive relationship between the average RHP of matched pairs and contest cost, while no such relationship is predicted for mutual assessment[3]
This study aims to determine what RHP assessment strategy is used during contests between pigs that have never previously met an unfamiliar conspecific, and how experience of fighting affects these strategies in later contests
Summary
Animal contest behaviour has been widely studied, yet major knowledge gaps remain concerning the information-gathering and decision-making processes used during encounters. In contest 2 control dyads, which only had experience of one prior contest, a negative relation between winner RHP and costs suggested mutual assessment during the pre-escalation phase but not during escalated aggression. Despite the importance of animal contest behaviour, major knowledge gaps remain concerning the information-gathering and decision-making processes used during encounters[3,4,5]. The third model is mutual assessment, which involves an assessment of relative RHP difference between opponents This is generally interpreted as an individual gathering information about the fighting ability of a rival and comparing this against an assessment of their own ability. It is important to examine the relationship between winner RHP and contest costs, with pure self-assessment predicting a weak positive or non-significant relationship, while mutual assessment and CAM predict this relationship to be negative[3]. While studies have investigated the role of experience on fight outcome, identifying so-called winner and loser effects[21], to our knowledge no studies have investigated how experience influences contest assessment
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
