IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/beheco/v27y2016i1p36-44..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should receivers follow multiple signal components? An economic perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Tricia L. Rubi
  • David W. Stephens

Abstract

Animal signals commonly consist of many components. Students of signaling have suggested that these complex, multicomponent signals are beneficial because they are more effective at influencing receiver behavior. This "more is better" view, however, is at odds with economic models, which predict that a single signal component is often sufficient to guide receiver behavior. This study develops a model that asks how receivers should respond to a simple 2-component signal. Our model predicts that receivers will follow the single most reliable component and ignore the second component. We tested this model experimentally using captive blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) as experimental receivers. We presented receivers with artificial signals composed of 2 components and assessed their responses to determine which component(s) they followed. Signals were composed of 2 visual components: a color and a pattern. We tested 3 levels of color reliability and 3 levels of pattern reliability in a factorial combination, resulting in 9 total treatments. We found that subjects followed a single signal component at a high level in every treatment, whereas the second component had a nearly negligible effect. Subjects generally followed the more reliable component, though they showed a bias in favor of color when the reliabilities of color and pattern were similar. We argue that alternative receiver benefits need to be considered to explain the prevalence of complex signals in nature.

Suggested Citation

  • Tricia L. Rubi & David W. Stephens, 2016. "Should receivers follow multiple signal components? An economic perspective," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 27(1), pages 36-44.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:36-44.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/beheco/arv121
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:beheco:v:27:y:2016:i:1:p:36-44.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/beheco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.