Abstract
Accurate assessment of the probability of success in an aggressive confrontation with a conspecific is critical to the survival and fitness of the individuals. Various game theory models have examined these assessment strategies under the assumption that contests should favor the animal with the greater resource-holding potential (RHP), body size typically being the proxy. Mutual assessment asserts that an individual can assess their own RHP relative to their opponent, allowing the inferior animal the chance to flee before incurring unnecessary costs. The model of self-determined persistence, however, assumes that an individual will fight to a set personal threshold, independent of their opponent's RHP. Both models have been repeatedly tested using size as a proxy for RHP, with neither receiving unambiguous support. Here we present both morphological and neurophysiological data from size-matched and mismatched stalk-eyed fly fights. We discovered differing fighting strategies between winners and losers. Winners readily escalated encounters to higher intensity and physical contact and engaged in less low-intensity, posturing behaviors compared with losers. Although these fighting strategies were largely independent of size, they were associated with elevated levels of 5-HT. Understanding the neurophysiological factors responsible for mediating the motivational state of opponents could help resolve the inconsistencies seen in current game theory models. Therefore, we contend that current studies using only size as a proxy for RHP may be inadequate in determining the intricacies of fighting ability and that future studies investigating assessment strategies and contest outcome should include neurophysiological data.