Signalling victory to ensure dominance: A continuous model
Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games, ISSN: 2474-0187, Vol: 12, Page: 25-38
2013
- 4Citations
- 5Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
A possible rationale for victory displays—which are performed by the winners of contests but not by the losers—is that the displays are attempts to decrease the probability that the loser of a contest will initiate a future contest with the same individual. We explore the logic of this “browbeating” rationale with a game-theoretic model, which extends previous work by incorporating the effects of contest length and the loser’s strategic response. The model predicts that if the reproductive advantage of dominance over an opponent is sufficiently high, then, in a population adopting the evolutionarily stable strategy or ESS, neither winners nor losers signal in contests that are sufficiently short; and only winners signal in longer contests, but with an intensity that increases with contest length. These predictions are consistent with the outcomes of recent laboratory studies, especially among crickets, where there is now mounting evidence that eventual winners signal far more frequently than losers after fighting, and that post-conflict displays are more likely to be observed after long contests.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84899066075&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-8355-9_2; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-0-8176-8355-9_2; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-0-8176-8355-9_2.pdf; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-8355-9_2; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-8176-8355-9_2; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-0-8176-8355-9_2; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/978-0-8176-8355-9_2
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know