Play fighting in many animals consists of a complex choreography of somewhat stereotypical behaviors involving attack and defense—typically of particular body areas—that are differentially generated under specific conditions. In most domains where behavior is considered, including the study of social play, the prevailing explanatory theories rest on the assumptions that: (1) behavior is the result of “programs” that can be strictly or loosely specified, located somewhere in the central nervous system, and (2) the behavior an organism produces in a certain circumstance is the result of a choice between all (or many) of the available options, assumed to be arrived at by considering internally generated predictions about the consequences of actions. To test these assumptions, we used sets of parameters generated by our previous work with rats and crickets to create an agent-based model of a game of “keep-away.” We demonstrate that the agents need to possess neither behavioral programs (e.g., fixed or modal action patterns), nor any predictive capacity, in order to reproduce the tactics commonly used when organisms protect an object of interest from conspecifics. The results are presented in terms of the evolution of social play, which can be seen as a variation of the game of keep away.
AldisO. (1975). Play fighting. Academic Press; New York.
2.
BarrettL. (2011). Beyond the brain: How body and environment shape animal and human minds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
BellH. C. (2014). Behavioral variability in the service of constancy. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27, 196–217.
4.
BellH. C.PellisS. M. (2011). A cybernetic perspective on food protection in rats: Simple rules can generate complex and adaptable behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 82, 659–666.
5.
BellH. C.JohnsonE.JudgeK. A.CadeW. H.PellisS. M. (2012). How is a cricket like a rat? Insights from the application of cybernetics to evasive food protective behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 84, 843–851.
6.
BibenM. (1998). Squirrel monkey play fighting: Making the case for a cognitive training function for play. In BekoffM.ByersJ. A. (Eds.), Animal play: Evolutionary, comparative, and ecological perspectives (pp. 161–2). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BlanchardR. J.BlanchardD. C. (1994). Environmental targets and sensorimotor systems in aggression and defence. In: CooperS. J.HendrieC. A. (Eds.), Ethology and psychopharmacology (pp. 133–157). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
8.
BlumbergM. S. (2005). Basic instinct. The genesis of behavior. New York: Thunders’ Mouth Press.
9.
DickinsonA.BalleineB. W. (2000). Causal cognition and goal-directed action. In HeyesC.HuberL. (Eds.), The evolution of cognition (pp. 185–204). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
EilamD. (1994). Influence of body morphology on turning behavior in carnivores. Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 3–12.
11.
EilamD. (1997). Postnatal development of body architecture and gait in several rodent species. The Journal of Experimental Biology, 200, 1339–1350.
12.
FieldE. F.WhishawI. Q.PellisS. M. (1996). An analysis of sex differences in the movement patterns used during the food wrenching and dodging paradigm. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 110, 298–306.
13.
GrazianoM. S. A. (2006). The organization of behavioral repertoire in motor cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 29, 105–134.
14.
HikosakaO. (1998). Neural systems for control of voluntary action: A hypothesis. Advances in Biophysics, 35, 81–102.
15.
HimmlerB. T.StryjekR.ModlinskaK.DerksenS. M.PisulaW.PellisS. M. (2013). How domestication modulates play behavior: A comparative analysis between wild rats and a laboratory strain of Rattus norvegicus. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 127, 453–464.
16.
HimmlerS. M.ModlinskaK.StryjekR.HimmlerB. T.PisulaW.PellisS. M. (2014a). Domestication and diversification: A comparative analysis of the play fighting of the Brown Norway, Sprague–Dawley, and Wistar strains of laboratory rats. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128, 318–327.
17.
HimmlerS. M.LewisJ. M.PellisS. M. (2014b). The development of strain typical defensive patterns in the play fighting of laboratory rats. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27, 385–396.
18.
KamitakaharaH.MonfilsM.-H.ForgieM. L.KolbB.PellisS. M. (2007). The modulation of play fighting in rats: Role of the motor cortex. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 164–176.
19.
LukeS.Cioffi-RevillaC.PanaitL.SullivanK.BalanG. (2005). MASON: A multiagent simulation environment. Simulation—Transactions of the Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 81, 517–527.
20.
MagnusR. (1926). On the co-operation and interference of reflexes from other sense organs with those of the labyrinths. Laryngoscope, 36, 701–712.
21.
MayC. J.SchankJ. C. (2009). The interaction of body morphology, directional kinematics and environmental structure in the generation of neonatal rat (Rattus norvegicus) locomotor behavior. Ecological Psychology, 21, 308–333.
22.
MayC. J.SchankJ. C.JoshiS. (2011). Modeling the influence of morphology on the movement ecology of groups of infant rats (Rattus norvegicus). Adaptive Behavior, 19, 280–291.
23.
MayC. J.SchankJ. G.JoshiS.TranJ.TaylorR. J.ScottI.-E.2006. Rat pups and random robots generate similar self-organized and intentional behavior. Complexity, 12, 53–66.
24.
MinkJ. W. (1996). The basal ganglia: Focused selection and inhibition of competing motor programs. Progress in Neurobiology, 50, 381–425.
25.
MuroC.EscobedoR.SpectorL.CoppingerR. (2011). Wolf-pack (Canis lupus) hunting strategies emerge from simple rules in computational simulations. Behavioural Processes, 88, 192–197.
26.
PellisS. M. (1988). Agonistic versus amicable targets of attack and defense: Consequences for the origin, function and descriptive classification of play-fighting. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 85–104.
27.
PellisS. M. (1996). Righting and the modular organization of motor programs. In OssenkoppK.-P.KavaliersM.SanbergP. R. (Eds.), Measuring movement and locomotion: From invertebrates to humans (pp. 115–133). Austin, TX: Landes Company.
28.
PellisS. M. (1997). Targets and tactics: The analysis of moment-to-moment decision making in animal combat. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 107–129.
29.
PellisS. M.BellH. C. (2015). Unraveling the dynamics of dyadic interactions: Perceptual control in animal contests. In: MansellW.Powers McElhoneA. (Eds.), Living control systems IV: Perceptual control theory and the future of the life and social sciences. Bloomfield, NJ: Benchmark Publications Inc., in press.
30.
PellisS. M.IwaniukA. N. (1999). The roles of phylogeny and sociality in the evolution of social play in muroid rodents. Animal Behaviour, 58, 361–373.
31.
PellisS. M.IwaniukA. N. (2004). Evolving a playful brain: A levels of control approach. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17, 90–116.
32.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C. (1987). Play-fighting differs from serious fighting in both target of attack and tactics of fighting in the laboratory rat Rattus norvegicus. Aggressive Behavior, 13, 227–242.
33.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C. (1990). Differential rates of attack, defense and counterattack during the developmental decrease in play fighting by male and female rats. Developmental Psychobiology, 23, 215–231.
34.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C. (1997). The pre-juvenile onset of play fighting in rats (Rattus norvegicus). Developmental Psychobiology, 31, 193–205.
35.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C. (1998). The play fighting of rats in comparative perspective: A schema for neurobehavioral analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 23, 87–101.
36.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C.DewsburyD. A. (1989). Different levels of complexity in the playfighting by muroid rodents appear to result from different levels of intensity of attack and defense. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 297–310.
37.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C.IwaniukA. N. (2014). Pattern in behavior: The characterization, origins and evolution of behavior patterns. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 46, 127–189.
38.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C.McKennaM. M. (1994). A feminine dimension in the play fighting of rats (Rattus norvegicus) and its defeminization neonatally by androgens. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 68–73.
39.
PellisS. M.PellisV. C.WhishawI. Q. (1992). The role of the cortex in play fighting by rats: Developmental and evolutionary implications. Brain, Behavior & Evolution, 39, 270–284.
40.
PellisS. M.FieldE. F.SmithL. K.PellisV. C. (1997). Multiple differences in the play fighting of male and female rats. Implications for the causes and functions of play. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 21, 105–120.
41.
PowersW. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. London, UK: Wildwood House.
42.
RailsbackS. F.GrimmV. (2011). Agent-based and individual based modeling: A practical guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
43.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA.H.ProkasyW.F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
44.
SchankJ. C.AlbertsJ. R. (1997). Self-organized huddles of rat pups modeled by simple rules of individual behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 189, 11–25.
45.
SiegelA. (2004). Neurobiology of Aggression and Rage. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
46.
SiviyS. M.PankseppJ. (1987). Sensory modulation of juvenile play in rats. Developmental Psychobiology, 20, 39–55.
47.
SuttonR. S.BartoA. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
SymonsD. (1978). Play and aggression. A study of rhesus monkeys. New York: Columbia University Press.
49.
TolmanE. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. The Psychological Review, 55, 189–208.
50.
WhishawI. Q. (1988). Food wrenching and dodging: Use of an action patterns for the analysis of sensorimotor and social behavior in the rat. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 24, 169–178.
51.
WhishawI. Q.GornyB. (1994). Food wrenching and dodging: Eating time estimates influence dodge probability and amplitude. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 35–47.
52.
WhishawI. Q.DuBoisA. T.FieldE. F. (1998). On the reduction of dodging in mice: A comparison of food wrenching and dodging in rats (Rattus norvegicus) and mice (Mus musculus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112, 383–388.
