Female mound-building mice prefer males that invest more in building behavior, even when this behavior is not observed

Tognetti, Arnaud; Ganem, Guila; Raymond, M.; Faurie, Charlotte

doi:10.1007/s00265-018-2569-4

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Females may not be making decisions based directly on behavior, but instead choosing based on physical traits that are correlated with BT [72]. Many of the sometimes arbitrary-seeming attributes that females use to make mate choice decisions have been theorized to indicate fitness-relevant traits via good genes or direct benefits.…”

Section: Box 1 How To Choosementioning

confidence: 99%

You’re Just My Type: Mate Choice and Behavioral Types

Munson

Jones

Schraft

et al. 2020

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consistent individual differences in behavior [i.e., behavioral types (BTs)], are common across the animal kingdom. Consistency can make behavior an adaptive trait for mate choice decisions. Here, we present a conceptual framework to explain how and why females might evaluate a male's BT before mating. Because BTs are consistent across time or context, a male's BT can be a reliable indicator of his potential to provide direct benefits. Heritable BTs can enable informed mate choice via indirect benefits. Many key issues regarding patterns of mate choice, including sensory biases, context dependence, and assortative mating apply to BT-dependent mate choice. Understanding the relationship between BTs and mate choice may offer insights into patterns of variation and consistency common in behavioral traits. BTs and Mate ChoiceMate choice is often a key factor influencing the evolution of traits [1,2]. While sexual selection via mate choice likely has a special role as a major explanation for highly elaborated ornaments, it is not only important for explaining exaggerated, sex-specific traits. A new insight is that the choosy sex (typically females) may also select a mate based on their own and their potential mate's behavioral type (BT) (see Glossary); for example, boldness, aggressiveness, exploratory tendency, or sociability [3]. An individual is said to have a BT if its behavior is consistent across time or contexts (e.g., an individual that is more aggressive than another in a foraging context, also tends to be more aggressive in the future and/or more aggressive in a mating context) [4]. If males have consistent BTs, then male behavior observed by a female at one time and context (e.g., during courtship) provides information about his likely behavior in the past and future (e.g., during parental care). Importantly, the time scale of this correlation is not part of the definition for either human or animal personalities [4,5]. More persistent BTs (e.g., over a lifetime) presumably have greater potential to be impactful, particularly for species with long-term mating associations, but even short-term consistency (e.g., from courtship to nesting or parental behavior a few weeks later) can be important [6][7][8].With regard to mechanisms of adaptive mate choice, correlations between a potential mate's past, present, and future behaviors may determine the quality and quantity of expected direct benefits that he can provide (e.g., nuptial gifts, territory, or parental care) [3]. Within a breeding season, BTs allow a female to predict a male's future behavior towards her and her offspring, which may be particularly important for species that have paternal care, including territory defense and provisioning [9,10]. While consistency to the next breeding season is not necessarily important for all species, species that engage in long-term pair bonds may rely more heavily on BTs to determine long-term compatibility [11]. Furthermore, given that BTs are heritable (about half of BT variation is attributable to additive geneti...

show abstract

Section: Box 1 How To Choosementioning

confidence: 99%

You’re Just My Type: Mate Choice and Behavioral Types

Munson

Jones

Schraft

et al. 2020

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to the possibility that body odours represent a cue of an individual's cooperative tendencies (such as high versus low cooperative individuals), body odours may also represent a cue of the cooperative behaviour itself (Gerber et al, 2020). Both possibilities are not mutually exclusive and it seems that both exist in non‐human animals (Gerber et al, 2020; Tognetti et al, 2018). In our study, we cannot disentangle whether women detect cues of cooperative action or cues of cooperativeness as we only collected axillary body odours while the participants played a cooperative task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The smell of cooperativeness: Do human body odours advertise cooperative behaviours?

Tognetti

Durand

Dubois

et al. 2021

British J of Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…R. Soc. B 377: 20200434 in mice [43] and skill competence in fish [5], birds [44] and humans [45]. Rank may even be a signal of competence in nonhuman primates [25].…”

Section: Interactions Do Not Equal Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggression, rank and power: why hens (and other animals) do not always peck according to their strength

Lewis

2022

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thorlief Schjelderup-Ebbe's seminal paper on the ‘pecking’ order of chickens inspired numerous ethologists to research and debate the phenomenon of dominance. The expansion of dominance to the broader concept of power facilitated disentangling aggression, strength, rank and power. Aggression is only one means of coercing other individuals, and can sometimes highlight a lack of power. The fitness advantages of aggression may only outweigh the costs during periods of uncertainty. Effective instruments of power also include incentives and refusals to act. Moreover, the stability of the power relationship might vary with the instruments used if different means of power vary in the number and types of outcomes achieved, as well as the speed of accomplishing those outcomes. In well-established relationships, actions or physiological responses in the subordinate individual may even be the only indicator of a power differential. A focus on strength, aggression and fighting provides an incomplete understanding of the power landscape that individuals actually experience. Multiple methods for constructing hierarchies exist but greater attention to the implications of the types of data used in these constructions is needed. Many shifts in our understanding of power were foreshadowed in Schjelderup-Ebbe's discussion about deviations from the linear hierarchy in chickens. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The centennial of the pecking order: current state and future prospects for the study of dominance hierarchies’.

show abstract

Female mound-building mice prefer males that invest more in building behavior, even when this behavior is not observed

Cited by 6 publications

References 60 publications

You’re Just My Type: Mate Choice and Behavioral Types

You’re Just My Type: Mate Choice and Behavioral Types

The smell of cooperativeness: Do human body odours advertise cooperative behaviours?

Aggression, rank and power: why hens (and other animals) do not always peck according to their strength

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About