Collective Self-Assessment in Banded Mongoose Intergroup Contests

Contests over resources are widespread in nature. To optimize outcomes, animals assess fighting abilities, deciding to escalate conflicts based on their own strength (self-assessment) or comparing their own strength with that of their rival (mutual assessment). While most research focuses on one-on-one (dyadic) contests, the assessment strategies employed by groups remain poorly understood. Mutual assessment is frequently assumed, as more information is thought to improve decision-making; however, this assumption has rarely been tested. Here we used a dataset spanning 23 years and 641 intergroup contests in a banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) population in Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda. Our results support a model of self-assessment: groups with many males tend to escalate conflicts regardless of the rival groups strength, thus contrasting the commonly held assumption that decisions during intergroup contests are made by mutual assessment. We suggest that assessing rival group strength during conflict could be disproportionately costly, compared with assessing own group strength, which can be done over longer time periods and is easier to obtain. Greater understanding of these dynamics can shed light on the drivers and escalation patterns of intergroup conflict across social species, including humans. Lay SummaryWhen two rival groups come together, what determines whether or not they fight? We found support for the hypothesis that banded mongoose groups escalate into physical fights based upon an estimation of their own groups strength, which we term collective self-assessment. We did not find evidence for a commonly held notion that groups compare their own groups strength with their rivals. Distinguishing between assessment strategies is intensively researched in contests between individuals but has rarely been applied to intergroup conflict. Here we applied the successful "assessment strategy framework" to group conflict, analyzing over 20 years of data from over 600 intergroup interactions. We suggest that collective self-assessment is employed because it is faster than mutual assessment, which offers an advantage in conflicts where time is of the essence.