CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,799Animal Behavior and ReproductionEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Parasites, Bright Males, and the Immunocompetence Handicap

Folstad, Ivar, Karter, Andrew John·1992·The American Naturalist
DOI 10.1086/285346
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It has been argued that females should be able to choose parasite-resistant mates on the basis of the quality of male secondary sexual characters and that such signals must be costly handicaps in order to evolve. To a large extent, handicap hypotheses have relied on energetic explanations for these costs. Here, we have presented a phenomenological model, operating on an intraspecific level, which views the cost of secondary sexual development from an endocrinological perspective. The primary androgenic hormone, testosterone, has a dualistic effect; it stimulates development of characteristics used in sexual selection while reducing immunocompetence. This "double-edged sword" creates a physiological trade-off that influences and is influenced by parasite burden. We propose a negative-feedback loop between signal intensity and parasite burden by suggesting that testosterone-dependent signal intensity is a plastic response. This response is modified in accordance with the competing demands of the potential costs of parasite infection versus that of increased reproductive success afforded by exaggerated signals. We clarify how this trade-off is intimately involved in the evolution of secondary sexual characteristics and how it may explain some of the equivocal empirical results that have surfaced in attempts to quantify parasite's effect on sexual selection.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/285346

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 101 references

1 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J.
ORCID
Venue
The American Naturalist
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
1992-03
Volume
139
Issue
3
Pages
603-622
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
DOI
10.1086/285346
OpenAlex
W2078121933
Cited by
2,799
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 115 · 2015: 130 · 2014: 155 · 2013: 101 · 2012: 129
FWCI
33.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The American Naturalist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Keywords
parasite resistance, secondary sexual characteristics, sexual selection, testosterone, androgenic hormones, infection intensity, physiological trade-offs, signal intensity, negative feedback loop, endocrinology, intraspecific variation, female mate choice

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