Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 64, Issue 12, pp 2015–2020 | Cite as

Social feedback and attractiveness in zebra finches

  • Nick J. RoyleEmail author
  • Thomas W. Pike
Original Paper


The attractiveness of an individual (i.e. its ability to arouse interest in a potential mate) has important implications for its reproductive success. However, attractiveness is not a fixed trait. Previous work has shown that male birds can adjust the intensity of their courtship display in response to variation in female behaviour, but little is known about how males adjust their behaviour during mate choice in response to social feedback about their own attractiveness independent of their intrinsic quality. Such information may help to maximize the potential mating success of males. Here, we provide experimental evidence that the amount of attention given by male zebra finches to females is dependent upon the manipulated attractiveness of males. This demonstrates that, in this socially monogamous species of bird, attractiveness of males could be considered to be a social construct, at least partially determined via social feedback from females.


Mate choice Attractiveness Social behaviour Monogamy Zebra finch 



NJR was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council on fellowship NE/C002199/1 and TWP by the Natural Environment Research Council on grant NER/A/S/2003/00490 to Jan Lindström, Neil Metcalfe and Jon Blount.


  1. Burley NT, Foster VS (2006) Variation in female choice of mates: condition influences selectivity. Anim Behav 72:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burley N, Krantzberg G, Radman P (1982) Influence of colour-banding on the conspecific preferences of zebra finches. Anim Behav 30:444–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buston PM, Emlen ST (2003) Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8805–8810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell DLM, Hauber ME (2009) The disassociation of visual and acoustic conspecific cues decreases discrimination by female zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). J Comp Psychol 123:310–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Clayton NS (1990) Mate choice and pair formation in Timor and Australian mainland zebra finches. Anim Behav 39:474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins SA (1994) Male displays: cause or effect of female preference? Anim Behav 48:371–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins SA (1995) The effect of recent experience on female choice in zebra finches. Anim Behav 49:479–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuthill IC, Hunt S, Cleary C, Clark C (1997) Colour bands, dominance, and body mass regulation in male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1093–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emery NJ, Seed AJ, von Bayern AMP, Clayton NS (2007) Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds. Phil Trans R Soc B 362:489–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Forstmeier W, Birkhead TR (2004) Repeatability of mate choice in the zebra finch: consistency within and among females. Anim Behav 68:1017–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godin J-GJ, Briggs SE (1996) Female mate choice under predation risk in the guppy. Anim Behav 51:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gong A, Gibson RM (1996) Reversal of a female preference after visual exposure to a predator in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim Behav 52:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci 24:609–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hauber ME, Sherman PW, Paprika D (2000) Self-referent phenotype matching in a brood parasite: the armpit effect in brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Anim Cogn 3:113–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Houston AI, McNamara JM (2002) A self-consistent approach to paternity and parental effort. Phil Trans R Soc B 357:351–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hsu Y, Wolf LL (2001) The winner and loser effect: what fighting behaviours are influenced? Anim Behav 61:777–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes KA, Du L, Rodd FH, Reznick DN (1999) Familiarity leads to female mate preference for novel males in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim Behav 58:907–916CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jirotkul M (1999) Operational sex ratio influences female preference and male–male competition in guppies. Anim Behav 58:287–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson JB, Basolo AL (2003) Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behav Ecol 14:619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Little AC, Burt DM, Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI (2001) Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:39–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pariser EC, Mariette MM, Griffith SC (2010) Artificial ornaments manipulate intrinsic male quality in wild caught zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Behav Ecol 21:264–269Google Scholar
  24. Patricelli GL, Albert J, Uy C, Walsh G, Borgia G (2002) Male displays adjusted to female’s response. Nature 415:279–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Riebel K (2003) Developmental influences on auditory perception in female zebra finches—is there a sensitive phase for song preference learning? Anim Biol 53:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reynolds JD, Gross MR, Coombs MJ (1993) Environmental conditions and male morphology determine alternative mating behavior in Trinidadian guppies. Anim Behav 45:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Royle NJ, Hartley IR, Parker GA (2002) Sexual conflict reduces offspring fitness in zebra finches. Nature 416:733–736CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Royle NJ, Lindström J, Metcalfe NB (2008) Context-dependent mate choice in relation to social composition in green swordtails Xiphophorus helleri. Behav Ecol 19:998–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rutstein AN, Brazill-Boast J, Griffith SC (2007) Evaluating mate choice in the zebra finch. Anim Behav 74:1277–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Safran RJ, Neuman CR, McGraw KJ, Lovette IJ (2005) Dynamic paternity allocation as a function of male plumage color in barn swallows. Science 309:2210–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Safran RJ, Adelman JS, McGraw KJ, Hau M (2008) Sexual signal exaggeration affects physiological state in male barn swallows. Curr Biol 18:R461–R462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Schielzeth H, Burgera C, Bolundaand E, Forstmeier W (2008) Assortative versus disassortative mating preferences of female zebra finches based on self-referent phenotype matching. Anim Behav 76:1927–1934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Senar JC, Domènech J, Camerino M (2005) Female siskins choose mates by the size of the yellow wing stripe. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ten Cate C, Mug G (1984) The development of mate choice in zebra finch females. Behaviour 90:125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Todd PM, Penke L, Fasolo B, Lenton AP (2007) Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15011–15016CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wachtmeister C-A (2001) Display in monogamous pairs: a review of empirical data and evolutionary explanations. Anim Behav 61:861–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Welch AM (2003) Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 57:883–893PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Witte K (2006) The time spent with a male is a good indicator of mate preference in female zebra finches. Ethol Ecol Evol 18:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wong RY, Hopkins CD (2007) Electrical and behavioral courtship displays in the mormyrid fish Brienomyrus brachyistius. J Exp Biol 210:2244–2252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wynn SE, Price T (1993) Male and female mate choice in zebra finches. Auk 110:635–638Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Environmental and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and ConservationSchool of Biosciences, University of ExeterCornwallUK

Personalised recommendations