Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?

Competition is ubiquitous among social animals. Vying against a conspecific to achieve a particular outcome often requires one to act aggressively, but this is a costly and inherently risky behaviour. So why do we aggressively compete, or at the extreme, fight against others? Early work suggested...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kristin Louise Hillman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-12-01
Series:Frontiers in Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnins.2013.00248/full
id doaj-67c50664bfde442c9ba4332c0a31a40d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-67c50664bfde442c9ba4332c0a31a40d2020-11-24T22:23:15ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Neuroscience1662-453X2013-12-01710.3389/fnins.2013.0024870441Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?Kristin Louise Hillman0University of OtagoCompetition is ubiquitous among social animals. Vying against a conspecific to achieve a particular outcome often requires one to act aggressively, but this is a costly and inherently risky behaviour. So why do we aggressively compete, or at the extreme, fight against others? Early work suggested that competitive aggression might stem from an innate aggressive tendency, emanating from subcortical structures. Later work highlighted key cortical regions that contribute towards an instrumental aggression network, one that is recruited or suppressed as needed to achieve a goal. Recent neuroimaging work hints that competitive aggression is upmost a cost-benefit decision, in that it appears to recruit many components of traditional, non-social decision-making networks. This review provides a historical glimpse into the neuroscience of competitive aggression, and proposes a conceptual advancement for studying competitive behaviour by outlining how utility calculations of contested-for resources are skewed, pre- and post-competition. A basic multi-factorial model of utility assessment is proposed to account for competitive endowment effects that stem from the presence of peers, peer salience and disposition, and the tactical effort required for victory. In part, competitive aggression is a learned behaviour that should only be repeated if positive outcomes are achieved. However due to skewed utility assessments, deviations of associative learning occur. Hence truly careful cost-benefit analysis is warranted before choosing to vie against another.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnins.2013.00248/fullAggressionCompetitive BehaviorDecision Makingcompetitionutilitycost-benefit
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kristin Louise Hillman
spellingShingle Kristin Louise Hillman
Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Aggression
Competitive Behavior
Decision Making
competition
utility
cost-benefit
author_facet Kristin Louise Hillman
author_sort Kristin Louise Hillman
title Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?
title_short Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?
title_full Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?
title_fullStr Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?
title_full_unstemmed Cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?
title_sort cost-benefit analysis: the first real rule of fight club?
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Neuroscience
issn 1662-453X
publishDate 2013-12-01
description Competition is ubiquitous among social animals. Vying against a conspecific to achieve a particular outcome often requires one to act aggressively, but this is a costly and inherently risky behaviour. So why do we aggressively compete, or at the extreme, fight against others? Early work suggested that competitive aggression might stem from an innate aggressive tendency, emanating from subcortical structures. Later work highlighted key cortical regions that contribute towards an instrumental aggression network, one that is recruited or suppressed as needed to achieve a goal. Recent neuroimaging work hints that competitive aggression is upmost a cost-benefit decision, in that it appears to recruit many components of traditional, non-social decision-making networks. This review provides a historical glimpse into the neuroscience of competitive aggression, and proposes a conceptual advancement for studying competitive behaviour by outlining how utility calculations of contested-for resources are skewed, pre- and post-competition. A basic multi-factorial model of utility assessment is proposed to account for competitive endowment effects that stem from the presence of peers, peer salience and disposition, and the tactical effort required for victory. In part, competitive aggression is a learned behaviour that should only be repeated if positive outcomes are achieved. However due to skewed utility assessments, deviations of associative learning occur. Hence truly careful cost-benefit analysis is warranted before choosing to vie against another.
topic Aggression
Competitive Behavior
Decision Making
competition
utility
cost-benefit
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnins.2013.00248/full
work_keys_str_mv AT kristinlouisehillman costbenefitanalysisthefirstrealruleoffightclub
_version_ 1725765194724933632