Abstract
Two recent overviews of costly signalling theory—Maynard-Smith and Harper (2003) and Searcy and Nowicki (2005)—both refuse to count signals kept honest by punishment of dishonesty, as costly signals, because (1) honest signals must be costly in cases of costly signalling, and (2) punishment of dishonesty itself requires explanation. I argue that both pairs of researchers are mistaken: (2) is not a reason to discount signals kept honest by punishment of dishonesty as cases of costly signalling, and (1) betrays too narrow a focus on certain versions of costly signalling theory. In the course of so arguing, I propose a new schema for classifying signal costs, which suggests productive research questions for future conceptual and empirical work on costly signalling.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Thanks to an anonymous referee for urging me to emphasise this point.
And, as Kim Sterelny has pointed out to me, punishment need not impose any extra costs on signal receivers. If known liars are punished via ostracism—not being chosen as partners for mutually profitable interactions—then punishment takes place as a side-effect of partner choice, and involves no costs that discriminating individuals were not paying anyway.
Thanks to Richard Joyce for this point.
References
Boyd R, Richerson P (1992) Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethol Sociobiol 13:171–195
Caro T (1986a) The functions of stotting: a review of the hypotheses. Anim Behav 34:649–662
Caro T (1986b) The functions of stotting in Thompson’s gazelle: some tests of the predictions. Anim Behav 34:663–684
Enquist M, Plane E, Roed J (1985) Aggressive communication in fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) competing for food. Anim Behav 33:1007–1020
Grafen A (1990a) Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144:517–546
Grafen A (1990b) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473–516
Johnstone R (1995) Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle. Biol Rev 70:1–65
Kotiaho J (2001) Costs of sexual traits. Biol Rev 76:365–376
Lachmann M, Szamado S, Bergstrom C (2001) Cost and conflict in animal signals and human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(23):13189–13194
Maynard-Smith J (1976) Sexual selection and the handicap principle. J Theor Biol 57:239–242
Maynard-Smith J, Harper D (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Miller G (2007) Sexual selection for moral virtues. Q Rev Biol 82:97–121
Mueno-Rueda G, Redondo T (2011) Begging at high level simultaneously impairs growth and immune response in southern shrike (Lanius meridionalis) nestlings. J Evol Biol 24:1091–1098
Saunders S (2009) Costly signalling: a work in progress. Biol Philos 24(3):405–416
Searcy W, Nowicki S (2005) The evolution of animal communication. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Smith E, Bliege-Bird R (2005) Costly signalling and cooperative behaviour. In: Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E (eds) Moral sentiments and material interests. MIT Press, Cambridge
Vehrencamp S (2000) Handicap, index, and conventional signal elements of bird song. In: Espmark Y, Amundsen T, Rosenqvist G (eds) Animal signals: signalling and signal design in animal communication. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim
Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection: a selection for handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214
Zahavi A (1977) The cost of honest (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol 67(3):603–605
Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fraser, B. Costly signalling theories: beyond the handicap principle. Biol Philos 27, 263–278 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-011-9297-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-011-9297-8