Cited by 80Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionLanguage and cultural evolution

Resolving current disagreements and ambiguities in the terminology of animal communication: Definitions in animal communication

RUXTON, G. D., SCHAEFER, H. M.·2011·Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

Communication is central to most interactions between organisms. There is currently considerable controversy about the evolution, function and even about the most basic definition of communication. The controversy is linked to definitional ambiguities and disagreements. Here we discuss how some recent disagreements can be resolved and offer a clear set of definitions. Central to our approach is a definition of communication as being a trade between one organism (the informer) and another (the perceiver). The informer exerts influence on the perceiver through the communication process, and the perceiver experiences a change in its informational state (that is, gains information) as a consequence of detecting the communication. We define both influence and information explicitly and delineate between signalling, deceptive communication, and situations where perceivers respond to cues rather than signals. We demonstrate how our definitions allow resolution of conflicts arising in recent publications on the definitions on communication and related terms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02386.x

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Standardising methodologies will avoid confusion and enable meaningful comparisons across species, populations, sexes, developmental stages, and behavioural contexts.

    “Standardising methodologies will avoid confusion and enable meaningful comparisons across species, populations, sexes, developmental stages, and behavioural contexts (Broughton 1963; Ruxton and Schaefer 2011; Kershenbaum et al. 2016).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 31 · Cited by 80

Authors
RUXTON, G. D., & SCHAEFER, H. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
Corresponding author
RUXTON, G. D.
Venue
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Published
2011-09-08
Volume
24
Issue
12
Pages
2574-2585
ISSN
1010-061X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1548262761
Cited by
80
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evolutionary Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
animal communication, definition of communication, terminology, information transmission, influence, signaling, deceptive communication, information gain, evolution of communication
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Communication, Cues, Group Processes, Terminology as Topic, Perception, Predatory Behavior, Species Specificity, Dissent and Disputes

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