Boldness and asymmetric contests: Role- and outcome-dependent effects of fighting in hermit crabs

Consistent between-individual differences in behavior have been demonstrated in an array of species from diverse taxa, and variation in boldness may be associated with variation in aggressiveness. However, little is known about how boldness is linked with the ability to win fights (resource holding potential) or about how the experience of fighting may alter subsequent boldness. Animal contests often involve role asymmetries, where the 2 opponents fight in different ways. Here, we investigate boldness before and after fighting in attacking and defending hermit crabs during contests over the ownership of gastropod shells. Although prefight boldness did not influence the chance of winning for attackers, successful defenders had longer startle responses (less bold) than those that gave up. Postfight changes in boldness also differed between roles. For defenders, there was a significant decline in consistency of startle responses after fighting, coupled with outcome-dependent plasticity in mean boldness. Furthermore, postfight boldness in defenders varied with the intensity of agonistic behavior inflicted on them by attackers. In contrast, boldness in attackers was stable across the before- and after-fighting situations. Links between internal state and agonistic behavior are known to vary between roles in asymmetric contests. It now appears that similar role-specific links are present between aggression and animal personality

The Scientific Shortcomings of Roper v. Simmons

This Article contends that some of the case law and social science research that form the basis for the United States Supreme Court\u27s decision in Roper v. Simmons are insufficient and outdated. The Court also relies heavily upon briefs submitted by the respondent and his amici, in lieu of providing more pertinent citations and analysis that could have enhanced and modernized the Court\u27s arguments. The sparse and sometimes archaic sources for Roper potentially limit the opinion\u27s precedential value. For example, the Court cites Erik Erikson\u27s 1968 book, Identity: Youth and Crisis, to support the view that, relative to adults, juveniles have more undeveloped and unstable identities. While Erikson\u27s influence as a psychologist is indisputable, his work reflects an outmoded psychoanalytic perspective. Furthermore, the Court does not specify which of Erikson\u27s highly complex theories are relevant to Roper\u27s conclusions. The shortcomings of Erikson\u27s book and other sources cited in the opinion would be less apparent but for the Court\u27s overall dearth of social science support. This Article concludes that despite Roper\u27s correct result, the Court\u27s application of interdisciplinary studies was, in part, flawed, thereby detracting from the Court\u27s otherwise progressive direction. Ultimately, the opinion\u27s strength derives more from its traditional legal analysis than from its application of relevant social science, an outcome the Court may not have fully intended

Understanding Bullying Participant Roles: Stability across School Years and Personality and Behavioral Correlates

This study investigated the factorial validity, stability, and social, behavioral and emotional correlates of several different roles that students can play in the context of bullying. Data were collected from students at two time points across two school years, April and May of 2006 (n=284) and again in November and December of 2006 (n=185). A confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the validity of 4 participant roles (i.e. bully, reinforcer, assistant, and defender). However, further analysis revealed that there was a strong degree of intercorrelation between the three bully factors (i.e., bully, reinforcer, and assistant). Analyses found that participant roles are fairly stable across school years and that the greater the percentage of same raters across the time points, the greater the stability. All of the bullying roles (i.e., bully, reinforcer, and assistant) were significantly related to callous unemotional traits, emotional dysregulation, positive expectations for aggression, conduct problems, reactive relational aggression, proactive relational aggression, reactive overt aggression, and proactive overt aggression, but these relationships were stronger in boys. It was also found that the defender role was associated with less aggression and more prosocial behavior. These associations were stronger in girls. Finally, a linear regression analysis of the interaction between participant roles and victimization revealed that at T1, the association between bullying roles and aggression was moderated by victimization. Specifically, the association was stronger in those low on victimization. At T2, the association between defending and lower aggression and greater prosocial behavior was stronger in those low in victimization