Signalling among relatives. I. Is costly signalling too costly?

Zahavi''s handicap principle,originally proposed as an explanation for sexual selection ofelaborate male traits, suggests that a sufficient cost to dishonest signals can outweigh the rewards of deception and allow individuals to communicate honestly. Maynard Smith (1991) and Johnstone and Grafen (1992) introduce the Sir Philip Sidney game in order to extend the handicap principle to interactions among related individuals, and to demonstrate that stable costly signalling systems can exist among relatives.In this paper we demonstrate that despite the benefits associated with honest information transfer, the costs incurred in a stable costly signalling system may leave all participants worse off than they would be in a system with no signalling at all. In both the discrete and continuous forms of the Sir Philip Sidney game, there exist conditions under which costly signalling among relatives, while stable, is so costly that it is disadvantageous compared with no signalling at all. We determine the factors which dictate signal cost and signal benefit in a generalized version of this game, and explain how signal cost can exceed signal value. Such results raise concerns about theevolutionary pathways which could have led to the existence of signalling equilibria in nature. The paper stresses the importance of comparing signalling equilibria with other possible strategies, beforedrawing conclusions regarding the optimality of signalling.     

When will evolution lead to deceptive signaling in the Sir Philip Sidney game?

Sir Philip Sidney games are a widely used model of simple signaling. Johnstone and Grafen [Johnstone, R.A., Grafen, A., 1993. Dishonesty and the handicap principle. Animal Behaviour 46, 759–764] present a version in which the Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) is for most signalers to “honestly” signal, with a small minority of signalers who “cheat”. This model is among the most frequently cited papers on the topic of “dishonest” signaling and supports the view that signals may be “dishonest” as long as they are “honest on average”. Using genetic algorithms, we demonstrate that another solution exists to the game, an evolutionarily stable set of Nash equilibria in which members of the set never signal and all donors give their resource. Payoffs to players using this set of strategies is greater those when playing the “dishonest” signaling ESS. We demonstrate that a random population is far more likely to evolve to this non-communicating strategy set than the “dishonest” signaling ESS. We also discuss the dynamics of biological game theory models and the advances of genetic algorithms as a heuristic solution method for these models.     

Why not lie? Costs enforce honesty in an experimental signalling game

Communication depends on reliability. Yet, the existence of stable honest signalling presents an evolutionary puzzle. Why should animals signal honestly in the face of a conflict of interest? While students of animal signalling have offered several theoretical answers to this puzzle, the most widely studied model, commonly called the ‘handicap principle’, postulates that the costs of signals stabilize honesty. This model is the motivating force behind an enormous research enterprise that explores signal costs—whether they are physiological, immunological, neural, developmental or caloric. While there can be no question that many signals are costly, we lack definitive experimental evidence demonstrating that costs stabilize honesty. This study presents a laboratory signalling game using blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) that provides, to our knowledge, the first experimental evidence showing honesty persists when costs are high and disappears when costs are low.     

How costly is the honest signaling of need?

ESS models of biological signaling have shown that costly signals can provide honest information. In the context of parent-offspring conflict over the allocation of resources by parents to their young, the theory explains costly offspring solicitation behavior as an accurate signal of offspring need to parents who cannot assess offspring condition directly. In this paper, we provide a simple but general characterization of the honest signaling of need in models of parent-offspring conflict: the offspring's signaling cost is proportional to the parent's fitness loss from satisfying the offspring's resource requirement. The factor of proportionality is given by a measure of the extent of parent-offspring conflict that depends only on coefficients of relatedness. These results hold for interbrood conflict with uniparental investment even if the relationship between offspring condition and resource requirement is not monotonic, and extend to cases of biparental care, uncertainty concerning the parent's condition, and intra-brood conflict. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.     

The cost of dishonesty

The handicap principle states that stable biological signals must be honest and costly to produce. The cost of the signal should reflect the true quality of the signaller. Here, it is argued that honest signalling may be maintained although the used signals are not handicaps. A game theoretic model in the form of a game of signalling is presented: all the existing evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs) are found. Honest and cheap signalling of male quality is shown to be evolutionarily stable if females divorce the mate if it turns out that he has cheated about his quality. However, for this ESS to apply, the cost of lost time must not be too great. The stability of the honest signalling is based on deceivers being prevented from spreading in the population because they suffer from a cost of divorce. Under some fairly strict conditions, a mixed polymorphism of dishonesty and honesty represents another possible ESS.     

Errors drive the evolution of biological signalling to costly codes

Reduction of costs in biological signalling seems an evolutionary advantage, but recent experiments have shown signalling codes shifted to signals of high cost with an underutilization of low-cost signals. Here I derive a theory for efficient signalling that includes both errors and costs as constraints and I show that errors in the efficient translation of biological states into signals can shift codes to higher costs, effectively performing a quality control. The statistical structure of signal usage is predicted to be of a generalized Boltzmann form that penalizes signals that are costly and sensitive to errors. This predicted distribution of signal usage against signal cost has two main features: an exponential tail required for cost efficiency and an underutilization of the low-cost signals required to protect the signalling quality from the errors. These predictions are shown to correspond quantitatively to the experiments in which gathering signal statistics is feasible as in visual cortex neurons.     

Begging and bleating: the evolution of parent-offspring signalling

The evolution of biological signalling in the face of evolutionary conflicts of interest is an active area of evolutionary ecology, and one to which Maynard Smith has made important contributions. We explore the major theoretical challenges in the field, concentrating largely on how offspring signal to their parents when there is the potential for parent-offspring conflict. Costly offspring solicitation (begging etc.) has been interpreted in terms of a Zahavi Grafen honest handicap signal, but this has been challenged on the grounds of' the costs of signalling. We review this controversy and also explore the issue of pooling versus separating signalling equilibrium. An alternative explanation for costly begging is that it is due to sibling competition, and we discuss the relationship between these ideas and signalling models in families with more than one offspring. Finally we consider signal uncertainty, how signalling models can be made dynamic, and briefly how they may be tested experimentally.     

Efficacy and honesty in communication between relatives

Abstract The evolution of honest communication has recently become the focus of intense theoretical attention. However, strategic models dealing with honesty have largely ignored the implications of noise and perceptual error for signal evolution (just as models dealing with signal detection in the presence of noise ignore strategic issues). Here, I analyze an extended version of Maynard Smith's strategic model of signaling of need between relatives, the Philip Sidney game, that incorporates the possibility of perceptual error. I show that even in the presence of noise, there exists over a wide range of parameter values a unique, continuously stable signaling equilibrium, at which the signaler employs a costly display when needy but refrains from doing so when healthy. For a subset of this range, there also exists a second, lower cost signaling equilibrium that is not continuously stable. At the former equilibrium, predicted signal cost is inversely related to the coefficient of relatedness (r) between signaler and receiver. Cost is not, however, predicted to drop to zero even when r = 1 and there is no conflict of interest between the two (as is the case in errofree models), because it serves to enhance the efficacy of communication as well as to discourage deceit. Equilibrium signal cost is inversely related to the probability that the signaler is needy, and tends to increase with the level of noise. If noise becomes too great (i.e., if a detectable signal is too costly to produce), signaling is no longer stable; surprisingly, it is also unstable if the level of noise is too low (i.e., if a detectable signal is too cheap to produce).     

A theoretical model of the evolution of maternal effects under parent-offspring conflict

The evolution of maternal effects on offspring phenotype should depend on the extent of parent-offspring conflict and costs and constraints associated with maternal and offspring strategies. Here, we develop a model of maternal effects on offspring dispersal phenotype under parent-offspring conflict to evaluate such dependence. In the absence of evolutionary constraints and costs, offspring evolve dispersal rates from different patch types that reflect their own, rather than the maternal, optima. This result also holds true when offspring are unable to assess their own environment because the maternal phenotype provides an additional source of information. Consequently, maternal effects on offspring diapause, dispersal, and other traits that do not necessarily represent costly resource investment are more likely to maximize offspring than maternal fitness. However, when trait expression was costly, the evolutionarily stable dispersal rates tended to deviate from those under both maternal and offspring control. We use our results to (re)interpret some recent work on maternal effects and their adaptive value and provide suggestions for future work.     

An Evolutionary Comparison of the Handicap Principle and Hybrid Equilibrium Theories of Signaling

The handicap principle has come under significant challenge both from empirical studies and from theoretical work. As a result, a number of alternative explanations for honest signaling have been proposed. This paper compares the evolutionary plausibility of one such alternative, the “hybrid equilibrium,” to the handicap principle. We utilize computer simulations to compare these two theories as they are instantiated in Maynard Smith’s Sir Philip Sidney game. We conclude that, when both types of communication are possible, evolution is unlikely to lead to handicap signaling and is far more likely to result in the partially honest signaling predicted by hybrid equilibrium theory.     

Costly signalling theories: beyond the handicap principle

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.     

The evolution of index signals to avoid the cost of dishonesty

Animals often convey useful information, despite a conflict of interest between the signaller and receiver. There are two major explanations for such ‘honest’ signalling, particularly when the size or intensity of signals reliably indicates the underlying quality of the signaller. Costly signalling theory (including the handicap principle) predicts that dishonest signals are too costly to fake, whereas the index hypothesis predicts that dishonest signals cannot be faked. Recent evidence of a highly conserved causal link between individual quality and signal growth appears to bolster the index hypothesis. However, it is not clear that this also diminishes costly signalling theory, as is often suggested. Here, by incorporating a mechanism of signal growth into costly signalling theory, we show that index signals can actually be favoured owing to the cost of dishonesty. We conclude that costly signalling theory provides the ultimate, adaptive rationale for honest signalling, whereas the index hypothesis describes one proximate (and potentially very general) mechanism for achieving honesty.     

The evolution of aggression: can selection generate variability?

Three models--the war of attrition, the size game and the badges of dominance game--are described, in which natural selection can maintain genetic variability for aggression. The models differ in whether or not the traits that settle contests are costly in contexts other than fighting, and also in whether signals are used. It is concluded that contests will be settled by non-costly traits only if the value of the contested resource is small relative to the cost of fighting, and that 'honest' signalling of aggressiveness is stable only if individuals giving signals that are inconsistent with their behaviour suffer costs. The literature on 'badges of dominance' in birds is reviewed. New data on great tits, greenfinches and corn buntings show that there is plumage variability within age and sex that sometimes serves to settle contests, and that, in the first two species but not the third, the badges are uncorrelated with size, and settle contests only over trivial resources.     

The Handicap Principle: how an erroneous hypothesis became a scientific principle

The most widely cited explanation for the evolution of reliable signals is Zahavi's so‐called Handicap Principle, which proposes that signals are honest because they are costly to produce. Here we provide a critical review of the Handicap Principle and its theoretical development. We explain why this idea is erroneous, and how it nevertheless became widely accepted as the leading explanation for honest signalling. In 1975, Zahavi proposed that elaborate secondary sexual characters impose ‘handicaps’ on male survival, not due to inadvertent signalling trade‐offs, but as a mechanism that functions to demonstrate males' genetic quality to potential mates. His handicap hypothesis received many criticisms, and in response, Zahavi clarified his hypothesis and explained that it assumes that signals are wasteful as well as costly, and that they evolve because wastefulness enforces honesty. He proposed that signals evolve under ‘signal selection’, a non‐Darwinian type of selection that favours waste rather than efficiency. He maintained that the handicap hypothesis provides a general principle to explain the evolution of all types of signalling systems, i.e. the Handicap Principle. In 1977, Zahavi proposed a second hypothesis for honest signalling, which received many different labels and interpretations, although it was assumed to be another example of handicap signalling. In 1990, Grafen published models that he claimed vindicated Zahavi's Handicap Principle. His conclusions were widely accepted and the Handicap Principle subsequently became the dominant paradigm for explaining the evolution of honest signalling in the biological and social sciences. Researchers have subsequently focused on testing predications of the Handicap Principle, such as measuring the absolute costs of honest signals (and using energetic and other proximate costs as proxies for fitness), but very few have attempted to test Grafen's models. We show that Grafen's models do not support the handicap hypothesis, although they do support Zahavi's second hypothesis, which proposes that males adjust their investment into the expression of their sexual signals according to their condition and ability to bear the costs (and risks to their survival). Rather than being wasteful over‐investments, honest signals evolve in this scenario because selection favours efficient and optimal investment into signal expression and minimizes signalling costs. This idea is very different from the handicap hypothesis, but it has been widely misinterpreted and equated to the Handicap Principle. Theoretical studies have since shown that signalling costs paid at the equilibrium are neither sufficient nor necessary to maintain signal honesty, and that honesty can evolve through differential benefits, as well as differential costs. There have been increasing criticisms of the Handicap Principle, but they have focused on the limitations of Grafen's model and overlooked the fact that it is not a handicap model. This model is better understood within a Darwinian framework of adaptive signalling trade‐offs, without the added burden and confusing logic of the Handicap Principle. There is no theoretical or empirical support for the Handicap Principle and the time is long overdue to usher this idea into an ‘honorable retirement’.     

Resolution of evolutionary conflict: a general theory and its applications

While many cases in which conflict over the evolution of social behavior exists even between closely related individuals (e.g., parent-offspring conflict) have been pointed out, little attention has been paid on the problem of where such conflict should lead. A general theory of conflict resolution, however, has recently been developed. The key idea of the theory is the incorporation of conflict costs in the inclusive fitness evaluation. The theory shows that if both sides engaged in the conflict can potentially control the other at a cost, the coevolutionary game of escalating the fight with increased conflict costs always leads either side to give in to the other, resolving the conflict. Here we examine the logical basis of the theory in terms of a simplest example, donor-recipient conflict over the evolution of altruism, and to show its different types of application we review two more specific examples: reproductive-worker conflict over true (sterile) worker evolution in termites and insider-outsider conflict over group size determination. The latter exemplifies the resolution of conflict over the value of a variable (group size in this case) rather than a behavior, suggesting extended applicability of the basic theory.     

Do aggressive signals evolve towards higher reliability or lower costs of assessment?

It has been suggested that the evolution of signals must be a wasteful process for the signaller, aimed at the maximization of signal honesty. However, the reliability of communication depends not only on the costs paid by signallers but also on the costs paid by receivers during assessment, and less attention has been given to the interaction between these two types of costs during the evolution of signalling systems. A signaller and receiver may accept some level of signal dishonesty by choosing signals that are cheaper in terms of assessment but that are stabilized with less reliable mechanisms. I studied the potential trade‐off between signal reliability and the costs of signal assessment in the corncrake (Crex crex). I found that the birds prefer signals that are less costly regarding assessment rather than more reliable. Despite the fact that the fundamental frequency of calls was a strong predictor of male size, it was ignored by receivers unless they could directly compare signal variants. My data revealed a response advantage of costly signals when comparison between calls differing with fundamental frequencies is fast and straightforward, whereas cheap signalling is preferred in natural conditions. These data might improve our understanding of the influence of receivers on signal design because they support the hypothesis that fully honest signalling systems may be prone to dishonesty based on the effects of receiver costs and be replaced by signals that are cheaper in production and reception but more susceptible to cheating.     

Group formation games with reappraisal

The formation of a social group, such as the group of individuals sharing a territory, depends on the interaction between choices made by individuals to stay or disperse. The process can be modelled as a multi-player variant of the well-known War of Attrition in evolutionary game theory, as shown by Blackwell (1997; J. Theor. Biol.189, 175-181). In this paper, we extend the set of strategies defined there by allowing reappraisal during the game. We give a formal analysis of the evolutionarily stable strategy, where one exists, and illustrate it with an example based on badger (Meles meles) territoriality. The results predict that group size will be well adapted to, and very sensitive to, the precise conditions under which the game is played, and give an indication of the potential for parent-offspring conflict.     

Cheap talk when interests conflict

Most evolutionary analyses of animal communication suggest that low-cost signals can evolve only when both the signaller and the recipient rank outcomes in the same order. When there is a conflict of interest between sender and receiver, honest signals must be costly. However, recent work suggests that low-cost signals can be evolutionarily stable, even when the sender and the receiver rank outcomes in different orders, as long as the interest in achieving coordination is sufficiently great. In this paper, we extend this body of work by analysing a game theory model that shows that low-cost signals can evolve when there are conflicts of interest and no interest in coordination, as long as individuals interact repeatedly. We also present an empirical example indicating that female rhesus macaques, Macaca mulatta, use honest, low-cost, vocal signals to facilitate interactions when conflicts of interest exist. Copyright 2000 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.     

Between cheap and costly signals: the evolution of partially honest communication

Costly signalling theory has become a common explanation for honest communication when interests conflict. In this paper, we provide an alternative explanation for partially honest communication that does not require significant signal costs. We show that this alternative is at least as plausible as traditional costly signalling, and we suggest a number of experiments that might be used to distinguish the two theories.     

Attention-Seeking Displays

Animal communication abounds with extravagant displays. These signals are usually interpreted as costly signals of quality. However, there is another important function for these signals: to call the attention of the receiver to the signaller. While there is abundant empirical evidence to show the importance of this stage, it is not yet incorporated into standard signalling theory. Here I investigate a general model of signalling - based on a basic action-response game - that incorporates this searching stage. I show that giving attention-seeking displays and searching for them can be an ESS. This is a very general result and holds regardless whether only the high quality signallers or both high and low types give them. These signals need not be costly at the equilibrium and they need not be honest signals of any quality, as their function is not to signal quality but simply to call the attention of the potential receivers. These kind of displays are probably more common than their current weight in the literature would suggest.