Winner and loser effects: a meta-analysis

IF 2.3 2区 生物学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Janice L. Yan , Noah M.T. Smith , David C.S. Filice , Reuven Dukas
{"title":"Winner and loser effects: a meta-analysis","authors":"Janice L. Yan ,&nbsp;Noah M.T. Smith ,&nbsp;David C.S. Filice ,&nbsp;Reuven Dukas","doi":"10.1016/j.anbehav.2024.07.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Aggressive interactions can strongly influence an animal's performance in subsequent contests. Winners of aggressive contests are more likely to win successive contests and losers are more likely to lose successive contests. Such winner and loser effects can significantly influence an animal's dominance status, ability to acquire resources and reproductive success. Thus, quantifying the magnitudes of winner and loser effects across taxa is important for our understanding of hierarchy formation, life history trade-offs and reproductive tactics in different species. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the magnitude of winner effects differ from that of loser effects. Finally, experimenters often employ one of two distinct methods for quantifying the strength of winner and loser effects: self-selection and random assignment. Due to selection bias, it is possible that self-selection protocols overestimate the magnitude of winner and loser effects. We therefore systematically searched the literature to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of winner and loser effects. We analysed a total of 168 effect sizes from arachnids, crustaceans, fishes, insects, mammals and reptiles. We found that prior winners tend to win approximately two-thirds of their subsequent fights, while prior losers tend to lose approximately two-thirds of their subsequent fights. While we did not find that studies using self-selection generated effect size estimates that significantly differed from random assignment protocols, future studies should still avoid self-selection protocols. Overall, our study highlights the ubiquity of winner and loser effects across the animal kingdom and suggests several avenues for future research to unravel the evolutionary origins and mechanistic underpinnings of such experience effects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50788,"journal":{"name":"Animal Behaviour","volume":"216 ","pages":"Pages 15-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347224002173/pdfft?md5=ba057883a8d76869cd3a88fcedcd211b&pid=1-s2.0-S0003347224002173-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347224002173","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aggressive interactions can strongly influence an animal's performance in subsequent contests. Winners of aggressive contests are more likely to win successive contests and losers are more likely to lose successive contests. Such winner and loser effects can significantly influence an animal's dominance status, ability to acquire resources and reproductive success. Thus, quantifying the magnitudes of winner and loser effects across taxa is important for our understanding of hierarchy formation, life history trade-offs and reproductive tactics in different species. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the magnitude of winner effects differ from that of loser effects. Finally, experimenters often employ one of two distinct methods for quantifying the strength of winner and loser effects: self-selection and random assignment. Due to selection bias, it is possible that self-selection protocols overestimate the magnitude of winner and loser effects. We therefore systematically searched the literature to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of winner and loser effects. We analysed a total of 168 effect sizes from arachnids, crustaceans, fishes, insects, mammals and reptiles. We found that prior winners tend to win approximately two-thirds of their subsequent fights, while prior losers tend to lose approximately two-thirds of their subsequent fights. While we did not find that studies using self-selection generated effect size estimates that significantly differed from random assignment protocols, future studies should still avoid self-selection protocols. Overall, our study highlights the ubiquity of winner and loser effects across the animal kingdom and suggests several avenues for future research to unravel the evolutionary origins and mechanistic underpinnings of such experience effects.

赢家和输家效应:荟萃分析
攻击性互动会强烈影响动物在随后比赛中的表现。攻击性竞赛的获胜者更有可能赢得连续的竞赛,而失败者则更有可能输掉连续的竞赛。这种输赢效应会极大地影响动物的优势地位、获取资源的能力和繁殖成功率。因此,量化不同类群中赢家和输家效应的大小对我们了解不同物种的等级形成、生活史权衡和繁殖策略非常重要。此外,目前还不清楚赢家效应与输家效应的大小是否不同。最后,实验者通常采用两种不同的方法之一来量化赢家效应和输家效应的强度:自我选择和随机分配。由于选择偏差,自选方案可能会高估赢家和输家效应的程度。因此,我们系统地检索了文献,对赢家和输家效应进行了全面的荟萃分析。我们分析了蛛形纲、甲壳纲、鱼类、昆虫、哺乳类和爬行类共 168 个效应大小。我们发现,先前的赢家往往会在随后的战斗中赢得大约三分之二的胜利,而先前的输家往往会在随后的战斗中输掉大约三分之二的胜利。虽然我们没有发现使用自我选择的研究产生的效应大小估计值与随机分配方案有显著差异,但未来的研究仍应避免使用自我选择方案。总之,我们的研究强调了赢家和输家效应在动物界的普遍性,并为未来的研究提出了几条途径,以揭示这种经验效应的进化起源和机理基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Animal Behaviour
Animal Behaviour 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
8.00%
发文量
236
审稿时长
10.2 weeks
期刊介绍: Growing interest in behavioural biology and the international reputation of Animal Behaviour prompted an expansion to monthly publication in 1989. Animal Behaviour continues to be the journal of choice for biologists, ethologists, psychologists, physiologists, and veterinarians with an interest in the subject.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信