Cited by 422Animal Behavior and ReproductionAvian ecology and behaviorEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains

Petrie, Marion, Tim, Halliday, Carolyn, Sanders·1991·Animal Behaviour

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80484-1

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petrie, M., Tim, H., & Carolyn, S.
Affiliations
The Open University (GB)
Venue
Animal Behaviour
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1991-02
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
323-331
ISSN
0003-3472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2028329438
Cited by
422
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 16
FWCI
21.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Animal Behaviour (publishedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
peacock, Pavo cristatus, female mate choice, eyespots, lek mating system, mating success, sexual selection, female preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review