The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’
Abstract
Why are animal displays so complex? In contexts ranging from courtship and mating to parent-offspring communication to predator deterrence, biological signals often involve a number of different visual, auditory and/or olfactory components. Previous models of communication have tended to ignore this complexity, assuming that only one kind of display is available. Here, a new game-theoretical model of signalling is described, in which signallers may use more than one display to advertise their qualities. Additional displays may serve to enhance the accuracy with which receivers assess a single quality (the ‘backup signal’ hypothesis), or to provide information about different qualities (the ‘multiple message’ hypothesis). Multiple signals are shown to be stable, even when multiple receiver preferences entail significant costs, provided that signalling costs are strongly accelerating. In such cases, signallers bias their investment towards more efficient forms of signal, but not to the exclusion of other display types. When costs are not strongly accelerating, by contrast, individual signallers employ only a single display at equilibrium. If different signals provide information about different qualities, however, then the equilibrium may feature alternative signalling strategies, with signallers who excel in one quality employing one kind of display, and those who excel in another quality employing another kind.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evans, M. R., & Thomas, A. L. R. (1992) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80229-5 · Cited by 133
The continuous Sir Philip Sidney game: a simple model of biological signalling
Johnstone, R. A., & Grafen, A. (1992) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80674-5 · Cited by 118
Self-citation
Cited by
Partan, S., & Marler, P. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.283.5406.1272 · Cited by 688
Principles of Rat Communication: Quantitative Parameters of Ultrasonic Calls in Rats
Brudzynski, S. M. (2005) · Behavior Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10519-004-0858-3 · Cited by 242
Eye for an eyespot: how iridescent plumage ocelli influence peacock mating success
Dakin, R., & Montgomerie, R. (2013) · Behavioral Ecology · doi:10.1093/beheco/art045 · Cited by 75
Indole: an evolutionarily conserved influencer of behavior across kingdoms
Tomberlin, J. K., Crippen, T. L., Wu, G., Griffin, A. S., Wood, T. K., & Kilner, R. M. (2017) · BioEssays · doi:10.1002/bies.201600203 · Cited by 59
Bodily Attractiveness as a Window to Women’s Fertility and Reproductive Value
Cloud, J. M., & Perilloux, C. (2014) · Evolutionary Psychology · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0314-6_7 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnstone, R. A.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1996-03-29
- Volume
- 351
- Issue
- 1337
- Pages
- 329-338
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2035110320
- Cited by
- 627
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1996.0026
- The paper
- Johnstone, R. A. (1996). Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0026
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.