Skip to main content

From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use

Abstract

Public information (PI), a form of indirect social information, is used by individuals to estimate the quality of environmental parameters. It can be acquired in two ways. One way is by noting the performance of others. The other way it can be acquired is by noting the behavioral decisions of other individuals. Performance-based PI has been observed most often in the context of food and breeding patch estimation, as well as by individuals eavesdropping on contests between others in the context of assessing the fighting ability of opponents and the quality of mates. Evidence for the acquisition of PI from behavioral decisions of others comes mostly from studies of copying behavior, although recent work suggests that it also occurs when individuals estimate the tendency of others to be altruistic. PI use appears to be widespread across many taxa, although most work has been conducted on birds and fish. Absent from the literature are clear examples of PI use in mammals. The use of PI appears to often depend on its cost of acquisition and whether it contradicts an individual’s personal prior experience. PI can be an important benefit of associating with others.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Ahlering MA, Faaborg J (2006) Avian habitat management meets conspecific attraction: if you build it, will they come? Auk 123:301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 5:325–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexander RD (1987) The biology of moral systems. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baltz AP, Clark AB (1999) Does conspecific attraction affect nest choice in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus: Psittacidae: Aves)? Ethology 105:583–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berglund A, Rosenqvist G (2001) Male pipefish prefer dominant over attractive females. Behav Ecol 12:402–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boulinier T, Danchin E (1997) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding patch selection in territorial migratory species. Evol Ecol 11:505–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Briggs SE, Godin J-G, Dugatkin LA (1996) Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 7:151–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brindley EL (1991) Response of European robins to playback of song: neighbor recognition and overlapping. Anim Behav 41:503–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooks R (1996) Copying and the repeatability of mate choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bshary R, D’Sousa A (2005) Cooperation in communication networks: indirect reciprocity in interactions between cleaner fish and client reef fish. In: McGregor P (ed) Communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 521–539

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bshary R, Grutter AS (2006) Image scoring and cooperation in a cleaner fish mutualism. Nature 441:975–978

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cadiou B, Monnat J-Y, Danchin E (1994) Prospecting in the kittiwake, Rissa tridactyla: different behavioural patterns and the role of squatting in recruitment. Anim Behav 47:847–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Caine NG, Addington RL, Windfelder TL (1995) Factors affecting the rates of food calls given by red-bellied tamarins. Anim Behav 50:53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2005) Social complexity and the information acquired during eavesdropping by primates and other animals. In: McGregor P (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 583–603

    Google Scholar 

  15. Childress MJ, Herrnkind F (2001) The guide effect influence on the gregariousness of juvenile Caribbean spiny lobsters. Anim Behav 62:1229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clark RW (2007) Public information for solitary foragers: timber rattlesnakes use conspecific chemical cues to select ambush sites. Behav Ecol 18:487–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clark CW, Mangel M (1984) Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain world. Am Nat 123:626–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Clark CW, Mangel M (1986) The evolutionary advantages of group foraging. Theor Popul Biol 30:45–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Day RL, Laland KN (2003) Species difference in adaptive use of public information in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:2413–2419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Coolen I, Ward AJW, Hart PJB, Laland KN (2005) Foraging nine-spined sticklebacks prefer to rely on public information over simpler social cues. Behav Ecol 16:865–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock T, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol 14:405–410

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dabelsteen T, McGregor PK, Shepard M, Whittaker X, Pedersen SB (1996) Is the signal value of overlapping different from that of alternating during matched singing in great tits? J Avian Biol 27:189–0194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Danchin E, Wagner RH (1997) The evolution of coloniality: the emergence of new perspectives. Trends Ecol Evol 12:342–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M (1998) Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implications for the evolution of coloniality. Ecology 79:2415–2428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Danchin E, Heg D, Doligez B (2001) Public information and breeding habitat selection. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 243–258

    Google Scholar 

  26. Danchin E, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Dittus WOJ (1984) Toque macaque food calls: semantic communication concerning food distribution in the environment. Anim Behav 32:470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Doligez D, Part T, Danchin E, Clobert J, Gustafsson L (1999) The use of conspecific reproductive success for breeding habitat selection in a non-colonial, hole-nesting species, the collared flycatcher. J Anim Ecol 68:1193–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Doligez B, Danchin E, Clobert J (2002) Public information and breeding habitat selection in a wild bird population. Science 297:1168–1170

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Doligez B, Cadet C, Danchin E, Boulinier T (2003) When to use public information for breeding habitat selection? The role of environmental predictability and density dependence. Anim Behav 66:973–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Doligez D, Part T, Danchin E, Clobert J, Gustafsson L (2004) Availability and use of public information and conspecific density for settlement decisions in the collared flycatcher. J Anim Ecol 73:75–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Doutrelant C, McGreggor PK (2000) Eavesdropping and mate choice in female fighting fish. Behaviour 137:1655–1669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dugatkin LA (1992) Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 139:1384–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dugatkin LA (1996) Copying and mate choice. In: Heyes CM, Galef BG Jr (eds) Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. Academic, San Diego, pp 85–105

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dugatkin LA (1998) Genes, copying, and female choice: shifting thresholds. Behav Ecol 9:323–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-G (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying. Proc R Soc Lond B 249:179–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Dugatkin LA, Godin J-G (1993) Female mate copying in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata: age dependent effects. Behav Ecol 4:289–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dzieweczynski TL, Earley RL, Green TM, Rowland WJ (2005) Audience effect is context dependent in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. Behav Ecol 16:1025–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Earley RL, Dugatkin LA (2002) Eavesdropping on visual cues in green swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri) fights: a case for networking. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:943–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Earley RL, Druen M, Dugatkin LA (2005) Watching fights does not alter a bystander’s response towards naïve conspecifics in male green swordtail fish, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim Behav 69:1139–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fletcher RJ (2006) Emergent properties of conspecific attraction in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 168:207–219

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Forbes LS, Kaiser GW (1994) Habitat choice in breeding seabirds: when to cross the information barrier. Oikos 70:377–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Inkeröinen J (1998) Heterospecific attraction and food resources in migrants’ breeding patch selection in northern boreal forests. Oecologia 115:278–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fraser CP, Ruxton GD, Broom M (2006) Public information and patch estimation for group foragers: a re-evaluation of patch-quitting strategies in a patchy environment. Oikos 112:311–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Freeman S (1987) Male red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) assess the RHP of neighbors by watching contests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21:307–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1970) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19:16–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Galef BG Jr, White DJ (1998) Mate-choice copying in Japanese quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Anim Behav 57:421–426

    Google Scholar 

  48. Gibson RM, Höglund J (1992) Copying and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 7:229–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gotceita V, Colgan P (1991) Assessment of patch profitability and ideal free distribution: the significance of sampling. Behaviour 119:65–76

    Google Scholar 

  50. Grant JWA, Green LD (1996) Mate copying versus preference for actively courting males by female Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes). Behav Ecol 7:165–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Green RF (1987) Stochastic models in optimal foraging. In: Kamil AC, Krebs JR, Pulliam HR (eds) Foraging behavior. Plenum, New York, pp 273–302

    Google Scholar 

  52. Greene CM, Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection at low population densities. Ecology 82:2091–2100

    Google Scholar 

  53. Grutter AS (1997) Spatio-temporal variation and feeding selectivity in the diet of the cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus. Copeia 1997:346–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Grutter AS, Bshary R (2003) Cleaner wrasse prefer client mucus: support for partner control mechanisms in cleaning interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 270(Suppl 2):S242–S244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hahn BA, Silverman ED (2006) Social cues facilitate habitat selection: American redstarts establish breeding territories in response to song. Biol Lett 2:337–340

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hamilton WD (1963) The evolution of altruistic behaviour. Am Nat 97:354–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hughes RN, Kaiser MJ, Mackney PA, Warburton K (1992) Optimizing foraging behaviour through learning. J Fish Biol 41:77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Huntingford FA, Turner AK (1987) Animal conflict. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hurley S, Chater N (2005) Perspectives on imitation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  60. Iwasa Y, Higashi M, Yamamura N (1981) Prey distribution as a factor determining the choice of optimal foraging strategy. Am Nat 117:710–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Jöhnsson JI, Ackerman A (1998) Watch and learn: preview of the fighting ability of opponents alters contest behaviour strategy. Anim Behav 56:771–776

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Johnstone RA (2001) Eavesdropping and animal conflict. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98:9177–9180

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Kendal RL, Coolen I, van Bergen Y, Laland KN (2005) Trade-offs in the adaptive use of social and asocial learning. Adv Study Behav 35:333–379

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kiester AR (1979) Conspecifics as cues: a mechanism for habitat selection in the Panamanian grass anole (Anolis auratus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 5:323–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. King AJ, Cowlishaw G (2007) When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making. Biol Lett 3:137–139

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Kotliar AN, Burger J (1984) The use of decoys to attract Least Terns (Sterna antillarum) to abandoned colony sites in New Jersey. Colon Waterbirds 7:134–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kress SW, Nettleship DN (1988) Re-establishment of Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula arctica) at a former breeding site in the Gulf of Maine. J Field Ornithol 59:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kunc HP, Amrhein V, Naguib M (2006) Vocal interactions in nightingales, Luscinia megarhynchos: more aggressive males have higher pairing success. Anim Behav 72:25–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Leboucher G, Pallot K (2004) Is he all he says he is? Intersexual eavesdropping in the domestic canary, Serinus canaria. Anim Behav 68:957–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Marler P, Evans CS, Hauser MD (1992) Animal signals: motivational, referential, or both? In: Papousek H, Jürgens U, Papousek M (eds) Nonverbal vocal communication: comparative and developmental approaches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–86

    Google Scholar 

  71. Matos RJ, Schlupp I (2005) Performing in front of an audience: signallers and the social environment. In: McGregor P (ed) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–83

    Google Scholar 

  72. McGregor P (2005) Animal communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  73. McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (1996) Communication networks. In: Kroodsma DE, Miller EH (eds) Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication among birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 409–425

    Google Scholar 

  74. McNamara J, Houston A (1980) The application of statistical decision theory to animal behaviour. J Theor Biol 85:673–690

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM (2004) Overlapping and matching in the song contests of black-capped chickadees. Anim Behav 67:441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Mennill DJ, Ratcliffe LM, Boag PT (2002) Female eavesdropping on male song contests in songbirds. Science 296:873–875

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Micheli F (1997) Effects of experience on crab foraging in a mobile and a sedentary species. Anim Behav 53:1149–1159

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Milinski M, Semmann D, Bakker TCM, Krambeck HJ (2001) Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: image scoring or standing strategy? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2495–2501

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Mönkkönen M, Helle P, Niemi GJ, Montogomery K (1997) Heterospecific attraction affects community structure and migrant abundances in northern breeding bird communities. Can J Zool 75:2077–2083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Morris DW (1992) Scales and costs of habitat selection in heterogeneous landscapes. Evol Ecol 1:379–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Muller KL (1998) The role of conspecifics in habitat selection in a territorial grasshopper. Anim Behav 56:479–485

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Muller KL, Stamps JA, Krishnan VV, Willits NH (1997) The effects of conspecific attraction and habitat quality in territorial birds (Troglodytes aedon). Am Nat 150:650–661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Naguib M, Kipper S (2006) Effects of different levels of song overlapping and singing behavior in male territorial nightingales (Luscinia megarhynchos). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:419–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Naguib M, Todt D (1997) Effects of dyadic vocal interactions on other conspecific receivers in nightingales. Anim Behav 54:1535–1543

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Naguib M, Fichtel C, Todt D (1999) Nightingales respond more strongly to vocal leaders of simulated dyadic interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:537–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Naguib M, Amrhein V, Kunc HP (2004) Effects of territorial intrusions on eavesdropping neighbors: communication networks in nightingales. Behav Ecol 15:1011–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Nordell SE, Valone TJ (1998) Mate choice copying as public information. Ecol Lett 1:74–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Nowak MA, Sigmund K (1998) Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393:573–577

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Nowak MA, Sigmund K (2005) Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437:1291–1297

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Oliveira RF, McGregor PK, Latruffe C (1998) Know thine enemy: fighting fish gather information from observing conspecific interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1045–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Ophir AG, Galef BG Jr (2003) Female Japanese quail that ‘eavesdrop’ on fighting males prefer losers to winners. Anim Behav 66:399–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Otter K, McGreggor PK, Terry AMR, Burford FRL, Peake TM, Dabelsteen T (1999) Do female great tits (Parus major) assess males by eavesdropping? A field study using interactive song playback. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1305–1309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Parejo D, Danchin E, Avilés JM (2004) The heterospecific habitat copying hypothesis: can competitors indicate habitat quality? Behav Ecol 16:96–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Part T, Doligez B (2003) Gathering public information for habitat selection: prospecting birds cue on parental activity. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1809–1814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Peake TM, Terry AMR, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2001) Male great tits eavesdrop in simulated male-to-male vocal interactions. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1183–1187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Peake TM, Terry AMR, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2002) Do great tits assess rivals by combining direct experience with information gathered by eavesdropping? Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1925–1929

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Peake TM, Matessi G, McGregor PK, Dabelsteen T (2005) Song type switching and eavesdropping in male great tits. Anim Behav 69:1063–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Phelps SM, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2007) The mixed-species chorus as public information: túngara frogs eavesdrop on a heterospecific. Behav Ecol 18:108–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Ramsay SM, Otter K, Ratcliffe LM (1999) Nest-site selection by female black-capped chickadees: settlement based on conspecific attraction? Auk 116:604–617

    Google Scholar 

  100. Reed JM, Dobson AP (1993) Behavioral constraints and conservation biology: conspecific attraction and recruitment. Trends Ecol Evol 8:253–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Ruxton GD (1995) Foraging on patches: are groups disadvantaged? Oikos 72:148–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Schlupp I, Ryan MC (1997) Male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna) copy the mate choice of others. Behav Ecol 8:104–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ (1994) Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263:373–374

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Schuck-Paim C, Alonso WJ (2001) Deciding where to settle: conspecific attraction and web site selection in the orb-web spider Nephilengys cruentata. Anim Behav 62:1007–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Seamans ME, Gutiérrez RJ (2006) Spatial dispersion of spotted owl sites and the role of conspecific attraction on settlement patterns. Ethol Ecol Evol 18:99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Sergio F, Newton I (2003) Occupancy as a measure of territory quality. J Anim Ecol 72:857–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Sergio F, Penteriani V (2005) Public information and territory establishment in a loosely colonial raptor. Ecology 86:340–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Smith JW, Benkman CW, Coffey K (1999) The use and misuse of public information. Behav Ecol 10:54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Stamps J (1988) Conspecific attraction and aggregation in territorial species. Am Nat 131:329–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Stamps J (1994) Territorial behavior, testing the assumptions. Adv Study Behav 23:173–232

    Google Scholar 

  111. Stamps JA (2001) Habitat selection by dispersers: integrating proximate and ultimate approaches. In: Clobert J, Danchin E, Dhondt AA, Nichols JD (eds) Dispersal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 230–242

    Google Scholar 

  112. Stevens J (1985) Foraging success of adult and juvenile starlings Sturnus vulgaris: a tentative explanation for the preferences of juveniles for cherries. Ibis 127:341–347

    Google Scholar 

  113. Templeton JJ, Giraldeau L-A (1995) Patch assessment in foraging flocks of European starlings: evidence for the use of public information. Behav Ecol 6:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Templeton JJ, Giraldeau L-A (1996) Vicarious sampling: the use of personal and public information by starlings foraging in a simple patchy environment. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38:105–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Trivers R (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Valone TJ (1989) Group foraging, public information, and patch estimation. Oikos 56:357–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Valone TJ (1993) Patch information and estimation: a cost of group foraging. Oikos 68:255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Valone TJ (1996) Food-associated calls as information about patch quality. Oikos 77:153–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Valone TJ, Giraldeau L-A (1993) Patch estimation by group foragers: what information is used? Anim Behav 45:721–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Valone TJ, Templeton JJ (2002) Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread phenomenon. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 357:1549–1557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. van Bergen Y, Coolen I, Laland KN (2004) Ninespine sticklebacks exploit the most reliable source when public and private information conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:957–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. van Breukelen NA, Draud M (2005) The roles of male size and female eavesdropping in divorce in the monogamous convict cichlid (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus, Cichlidae). Behaviour 142:1029–1041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Wagner RH, Danchin E (2003) Conspecific copying: a general mechanism of social aggregation. Anim Behav 65:405–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Ward MP, Schlossberg S (2004) Conspecific attraction and the conservation of territorial songbirds. Conserv Biol 18:519–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Webster MW, Hart PJB (2006) Subhabitat selection by foraging threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus): previous experience and social conformity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK (2000) Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav 59:467–476

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  127. White D (2004) Influences of social learning on mate-choice decisions. Learn Behav 32:105–113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. White DJ, Galef BG Jr (2000) “Culture” in quail: social influences on mate choice of female Coturnix japonica. Anim Behav 59:975–979

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Widemo MS (2006) Male but not female pipefish copy mate choice. Behav Ecol 17:255–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Witte K, Noltemeier B (2002) The role of information in mate-choice copying in female sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:194–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Witte K, Ryan MJ (1998) Male body length influences mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna. Behav Ecol 9:534–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Witte K, Ryan MJ (2002) Mate-choice copying in the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna) in the wild. Anim Behav 63:943–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Witte K, Ueding K (2003) Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behav Ecol 14:389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I thank K. Otter and J. Templeton for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas J. Valone.

Additional information

Communicated by A. Cockburn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Valone, T.J. From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62, 1–14 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0439-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Altruism
  • Assessment of quality
  • Fighting ability
  • Foraging
  • Mate choice
  • Social information