Animal contests over resources are often settled by displays rather than fighting. Contests may involve asymmetries that cannot be perceived, such as unequal fighting ability. Classical game theoretic accounts suggest that talk is cheap, and that honest signals conveying information about an asymmetry should not be expected. A model by Enquist (1985) reaches the opposite conclusion, and predicts reliable, cost-free signalling of fighting ability. An evolutionary simulation is presented which tests Enquist's assumption that weak animals will signal honestly because they have so much to lose by bluffing. The status of Enquist's honest signalling strategy as an ESS is questioned, and his conclusions are shown to be dependent on an idiosyncratic way of modelling animal combat.
展开▼
