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

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

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'.

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

Several physical features influence the perception of how cooperative a potential partner is. While previous work focused on face and voice, it remains unknown whether body odours influence judgements of cooperativeness and if odour-based judgements are accurate. Here, we first collected axillary odours of cooperative and uncooperative male donors through a public good game and used them as olfactory stimuli in a series of tasks examining whether and how they influence cooperative decision-making in an incentivized economic game and ratings of cooperativeness. Our results show that having access to the donor's body odours provided a strategic advantage to women during economic decisions (but not to men): with age, women were more likely to cooperate with cooperative men and to avoid interacting with uncooperative men. Ratings of cooperativeness were nonetheless unrelated to the donors' actual cooperativeness. Finally, while men with masculine and intense body odours were judged less cooperative, we found no evidence that donors' actual cooperativeness was associated with less masculine or less intense body odour. Overall, our findings suggest that, as faces and voices, body odours influence perceived cooperativeness and might be used accurately and in a non-aware manner as olfactory cues of cooperativeness, at least by women.

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

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.

Testing the Sexual and Social Benefits of Cooperation in Animals

Theoretical models show that sexual and social selection can stabilise cooperation. However, field tests of these mechanisms have been difficult to conduct and the results are mixed. We discuss the conceptual and practical difficulties associated with testing the role of social and sexual selection on cooperation and argue that there are alternative ways of examining these hypotheses. Specifically, approaches based on the classic theories of sexual selection and signalling, and recent developments in the field of behavioural syndromes, provide mechanisms to insure the reliability of cooperation. In addition, methodological developments (social networks and microtracking) and long-term datasets, allow measuring partner choice in a cooperation context and the resulting fitness benefits for both the cooperators and the individuals that associate with them.