Humans and social animals show similar responses to defensive threats such as the presence of predators or rival conspecifics (Blanchard et al., 2001). The current work tested two extensions of this research: first, whether humans show similar assessment processes compared to non-human animals including dynamically updating their assessments based on new information, and second, whether humans send different signals (i.e., willingness to escalate or submission) based on differences in physical formidability and whether those signals have behavioral consequences. Using an experimental procedure where randomly paired same-sex naïve participants competed against one another in a physical task, the current experiment revealed evidence consistent with assessment; participants became more accurate in their judgments of strength after gaining information from a physical contest. In contrast, participants did not send different signals based on differences in formidability, insofar as those signals were broadcasted by changes in strength. Implications of using animal models to predict human defensive behaviors are discussed, as well as relevant connections to game theory. -- Abstract.
Read
