Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Signal Reliability

  • Brittany A. Coppinger
  • Scott A. Benson
  • Todd M. FreebergEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2729-1

Synonyms

Definition

Communication occurs when one individual influences the behavior of at least one other individual through the information conveyed by its signals or cues. Whereas cues are often incidental byproducts of individual behavior or physiology that convey information, signals evolved specifically for the function of communicating (see “Communication, Signals, and Cues”; Maynard Smith and Harper 2003). A signal is reliable when it is consistently and predictably associated with either the signaler’s state or some salient aspect of the environment. In animal species, signals are generally reliable because of strong selection pressure on receivers to ignore or avoid unreliable signals or signalers – unreliable signals are therefore selected against.

Introduction

Communication is often a dyadic interaction between signalers, who produce signals, and receivers, who monitor signals. For decades leading up to the 1970s, the general view of animal communication...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akçay, Ç. L., Tom, M. E., Campbell, S. E., & Beecher, M. D. (2013). Song type matching is an honest early threat signal in a hierarchical animal communication system. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20122517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird, R. B., & Smith, E. A. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46, 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradbury, J. W., & Vehrencamp, S. L. (2011). Principles of animal communication (2nd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  4. Brandt, Y. (2003). Lizard threat display handicaps endurance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270, 1061–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt, J. M., Campbell, S. E., & Beecher, M. D. (2001). Song type matching as threat: A test using interactive playback. Animal Behaviour, 62, 1163–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 282–309). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Flower, T. P. (2011). Fork-tailed drongos use deceptive mimicked alarm calls to steal food. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1548–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flower, T. P., Gribble, M., & Ridley, A. R. (2014). Deception by flexible alarm mimicry in an African bird. Science, 344, 513–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guilford, T., & Dawkins, M. S. (1995). What are conventional signals? Animal Behaviour, 49, 1689–1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (2nd ed., pp. 380–402). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Laidre, M. E., & Johnstone, R. A. (2013). Animal signals. Current Biology, 23, R829–R833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leonard, M. L., & Horn, A. G. (2001). Begging calls and parental feeding decisions in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 49, 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. (2003). Animal Signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Molles, L. E., & Vehrencamp, S. L. (2001). Songbird cheaters pay a retaliation cost: Evidence for auditory conventional signals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268, 2013–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nakano, R., Takanashi, T., Surlykke, A., Skals, N., & Ishikawa, Y. (2013). Evolution of deceptive and true courtship songs in moths. Scientific Reports, 3, 2003.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Pisanski, K., Fraccaro, P. J., Tigue, C. C., O’Connor, J. J. M., Röder, S., Andrews, P. W., Fink, B., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Feinberg, D. R. (2014). Vocal indicators of body size in men and women: A meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour, 95, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Searcy, W. A., & Nowicki, S. (2005). The evolution of animal communication: Reliability and deception in signaling systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., & Marler, P. (1980). Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science, 210, 801–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sherman, P. W. (1977). Nepotism and the evolution of alarm calls. Science, 197, 1246–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, W. J. (1977). The behavior of communicating: An ethological approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Számadó, S. (2011). The cost of honesty and the fallacy of the handicap principle. Animal Behaviour, 81, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tibbetts, E. A. (2014). The evolution of honest communication: Integrating social and physiological costs of ornamentation. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 54, 578–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 14, 249–264.Google Scholar
  24. Webster, M. S., Ligon, R. A., & Leighton, G. M. (2018). Social costs are an underappreciated force for honest signalling in animal aggregations. Animal Behaviour, 143, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Whiting, M. J., Webb, J. K., & Keogh, J. S. (2009). Flat lizard female mimics use sexual deception in visual but not chemical signals. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1585–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wilson, R. S., & Angilletta, M. J., Jr. (2015). Dishonest signaling during aggressive interactions: Theory and empirical evidence. In D. J. Irschick, M. Briffa, & J. Podos (Eds.), Animal signaling and function: An integrative approach (pp. 205–227). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Wyman, M. T., Mooring, M. S., McCowan, B., Penedo, M. C. T., Reby, D., & Hart, L. A. (2012). Acoustic cues to size and quality in the vocalizations of male north American bison, Bison bison. Animal Behaviour, 84, 1381–1391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection – a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brittany A. Coppinger
    • 1
  • Scott A. Benson
    • 1
  • Todd M. Freeberg
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Russell Jackson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of IdahoMoscowUSA