Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2000 May 7;267(1446):917–922. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1090

Body postures and patterns as amplifiers of physical condition.

P W Taylor 1, O Hasson 1, D L Clark 1
PMCID: PMC1690626  PMID: 10853735

Abstract

The question of why receivers accept a selfish signaller's message as reliable or 'honest' has fuelled ample controversy in discussions of communication. The handicap mechanism is now widely accepted as a potent constraint on cheating. Handicap signals are deemed reliable by their costs: signallers must choose between investing in the signal or in other aspects of fitness. Accordingly, resources allocated to the signal come to reflect the signaller's fitness budget and, on average, cheating is uneconomic. However, that signals may also be deemed reliable by their design, regardless of costs, is not widely appreciated. Here we briefly describe indices and amplifiers, reliable signals that may be essentially cost free. Indices are reliable because they bear a direct association with the signalled quality rather than costs. Amplifiers do not directly provide information about signaller quality, but they facilitate assessment by increasing the apparency of pre-existing cues and signals that are associated with quality. We present results of experiments involving a jumping spider (Plexippus paykulli) to illustrate how amplifiers can facilitate assessment of cues associated with physical condition without invoking the costs required for handicap signalling.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (293.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Clark D. L., Uetz G. W. Signal efficacy and the evolution of male dimorphism in the jumping spider, Maevia inclemens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Dec 15;90(24):11954–11957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.24.11954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Getty T. Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Anim Behav. 1998 Jul;56(1):127–130. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517–546. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hasson O. Towards a General Theory of Biological Signaling. J Theor Biol. 1997 Mar 21;185(2):139–156. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.1996.0258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Henderson L., Jones E., Freemantle M., Howard C. A., Jenkinson P., Lambert R., Mackay J., Marshall R., Wilcox P. Extended harvest times are not necessary for the detection of in vitro clastogens in regulatory cytogenetics studies. Mutagenesis. 1996 Jan;11(1):61–67. doi: 10.1093/mutage/11.1.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hurd PL. Cooperative signalling between opponents in fish fights. Anim Behav. 1997 Nov;54(5):1309–1315. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  8. Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205–214. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Zahavi A. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):603–605. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(77)90061-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES