To breathe or fight? Siamese fighting fish differ when facing a real opponent or mirror image.

Displays are a feature of animal contest behaviour and have been interpreted as a means of gathering information on opponent fighting ability, as well as signalling aggressive motivation. In fish, contest displays often include frontal and lateral elements, which in the latter involves contestants showing their flanks to an opponent. Previous work in a range of fish species has demonstrated population-level lateralization of these displays, preferentially showing one side to their opponent. Mirrors are commonly used in place of a real opponent to study aggression in fish, yet they may disrupt the normal pattern of display behaviour. Here, using Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens, we compare the aggressive behaviour of males to a mirror image and real opponent behind a transparent barrier. As this species is a facultative air-breather, we also quantify surface breathing, providing insights into underlying fight motivation. Consistent with previous work, we found evidence of population-level
lateralization, with a bias to present the left side and use the left eye when facing a real opponent. Contrary to expectations, there were no differences in the aggressive displays to a mirror and real opponent, with positive correlations between the behaviour in the two scenarios. However, there were important differences in surface breathing, which was more frequent and of longer duration in the mirror treatment. The reasons for these differences are discussed in relation to the repertoire of contest behaviour and motivation when facing a real opponent.

To breathe or fight? Siamese fighting fish differ when facing a real opponent or mirror image

Displays are a feature of animal contest behaviour and have been interpreted as a means of gathering information on opponent fighting ability, as well as signalling aggressive motivation. In fish, contest displays often include frontal and lateral elements, which in the latter involves contestants showing their flanks to an opponent. Previous work in a range of fish species has demonstrated population-level lateralization of these displays, preferentially showing one side to their opponent. Mirrors are commonly used in place of a real opponent to study aggression in fish, yet they may disrupt the normal pattern of display behaviour. Here, using Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens, we compare the aggressive behaviour of males to a mirror image and real opponent behind a transparent barrier. As this species is a facultative air-breather, we also quantify surface breathing, providing insights into underlying fight motivation. Consistent with previous work, we found evidence of population-level lateralization, with a bias to present the left side and use the left eye when facing a real opponent. Contrary to expectations, there were no differences in the aggressive displays to a mirror and real opponent, with positive correlations between the behaviour in the two scenarios. However, there were important differences in surface breathing, which was more frequent and of longer duration in the mirror treatment. The reasons for these differences are discussed in relation to the repertoire of contest behaviour and motivation when facing a real opponent.

Transitions in Contentious Behaviour in Infancy and Later Aggressive Conduct Problems

Background. Individual trajectories toward aggression originate in early infancy, before there is intent to harm. We focused on infants who were contentious, i.e., prone to engage in anger and use of physical force with other people, and examined change in levels of contentiousness between 6 and 12 months of age with reference to later aggressive conduct problems.
Sample. The CCDS is a nationally representative sample of 321 firstborn children whose families were recruited from antenatal clinics in two National Health Service Trusts.
Method. Mothers, fathers, and a third family member or friend who knew infants well completed the Cardiff Infant Contentiousness Scale (CICS) at 6 months, which was stable form 6 to 12 months, and validated by direct observation of infants’ use of force against peers. Primary caregivers again completed the CICS at 12 months, and up to three informants completed the Child Behaviour Check List at mean ages of 36 and 84 months. We used Latent Transition Analysis to identify different groups of infants in respect to their patterns of contentiousness from 6 to 12 months.
Results
Three ordered classes of contentiousness from low to high were found at 6 and 12 months. Infants exposed to greater family adversity were more likely to move into the high-contentious class from 6 to 12 months. Higher contentiousness in infancy predicted more aggressive conduct problems at 33 months and thereafter.
Conclusions
Infants exposed to family adversity are already at disadvantage by 6 months and likely to escalate in their anger and aggressiveness over time.

Complex contests and the influence of aggressiveness in pigs

Animal contests vary greatly in behavioural tactics used and intensity reached, with some encounters resolved without physical contact while others escalate to damaging fighting. However, the reasons for such variation remains to be fully explained. Aggressiveness, in terms of a personality trait, offers a potentially important source of variation that has typically been overlooked. Therefore, we studied how aggressiveness as a personality trait influenced escalation between contestants matched for resource holding potential (RHP), using detailed observations of the contest behaviour, contest dynamics, and escalation levels. We predicted that winner and loser behaviour would differ depending on personality. This was tested by examining 52 dyadic contests between pigs (Sus scrofa). Aggressiveness was assayed in resident-intruder tests prior to the contest. Contests were then staged between pigs matched for RHP in terms of body weight but differing in their aggressiveness. In 27% of the contests a winner emerged without escalated physical fighting, demonstrating that a fight is not a prerequisite between RHP-matched contestants. However, the duration of contests with or without fighting was the same. In contests without a fight, opponents spent more time on mutual investigation and non-contact displays such as parallel walking, which suggests that ritualized display may facilitate assessment and decision making. Winners low in aggressiveness invested more time in opponent investigation and display and showed substantially less aggression towards the loser after its retreat compared to aggressive winners. Aggressiveness influenced contest dynamics but did not predict the level of escalation. Prominent behavioural differences were found for the interaction between personality and outcome and we therefore recommend including this interaction in models where personality is considered. Analyses based on contest duration only would miss many of the subtleties which are shown here and we therefore encourage more detailed analyses of animal contests, irrespective of the level of contest escalation.