The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling Systems

188 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Alignment of Language Agents (2021, methodology): “…functional deception (Hauser, 1996), where it’s not necessary to have the cognitive underpinnings of intention and belief, as in the perspective of intentional deception (Hauser, 1996), where the signaler is required to have intention to cause the receiver a false belief (Searcy and Nowicki, 2005).”
The evolutionary nature of musical meaning (2009, background): “…an honest signal reveals qualities of a signaller to a receiver that are relevant to the communicative situation; see Számadó & Szathmáry, 2006; Searcy & Nowicki, 2005); in this system, signals that are produced and perceived would have to exhibit features of which the interpretative scope…”
Giant panda scent-marking strategies in the wild: role of season, sex and marking surface (2012, background): “The benefits of reproductive coordination, mate selection, competition and social cohesion, among others, must be weighed against the cost of producing and distributing signals (Bradbury & Vehrenkamp 1998; Smith & Harper 2003; Searcy & Nowichi 2005).”
Bird song as a signal of aggressive intent (2006, background): “The reliability of animal signals is a major issue in research on animal communication (MaynardSmith andHarper 2003; Searcy and Nowicki 2005).”