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, even though animal groups from ants to humans engage in intergroup conflict. 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 21 years and 633 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 group's 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.