Resource holding potential, subjective resource value, and game theoretical models of aggressiveness signalling
Resource holding potential, subjective resource value, and game theoretical models of aggressiveness signalling
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.01.001
复制
发表时间：
2006-08-07
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Hurd, Peter L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hurd, Peter L.
经验证据表明，在某些物种中，攻击性(参与或升级攻击性互动的意愿)可能比赢得战斗的能力更重要。经验和理论传统都将攻击性视为与赢得战斗的能力(RHP)或动机(主观资源价值)截然不同的属性。我研究了在使用简单的升级战略模型建模时，这三个特征是如何明显不同的。然后，我考察了竞争沟通的博弈论模型，并证明了用信号表示攻击性的模型要求：(1)特征，攻击性，它既不是RHP或动机的相关因素，也不是结果；(2)障碍，它否定了通过使用特定信号获得的任何好处；以及(3)不存在任何其他可以用来为玩家分配角色的不对称。我的结论是，这些假设不太可能得到满足，而“进攻性”的经验例子更有可能代表主观资源价值的长期差异。(C)2006爱思唯尔有限公司。保留所有权利。
Empirical evidence suggests that aggressiveness (willingness to enter into, or escalate an aggressive interaction) may be more important than the ability to win fights in some species. Both empirical and theoretical traditions treat aggressiveness as a distinct property from the ability (RHP) or motivation (subjective resource value) to win a fight. I examine how these three traits are clearly distinct when modelled using a simple strategic model of escalation. I then examine game theoretical models of agonistic communication and demonstrate that models in which aggressiveness is signalled require: (1) a trait, aggressiveness, which is neither a correlate, nor consequence of RHP or motivation, (2) a handicap which negates any benefit to be gained through the use of a particular signal, and (3) the absence of any other asymmetry which could be used to assign roles to players. I conclude that it is unlikely that these assumptions are ever met, and that empirical examples of "aggressiveness" are far more likely to represent long-term differences in subjective resource value. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.