In the eye (and ears) of the beholder: Receiver psychology and human signal design

Abstract

Although the study of signals has been part of human behavioral ecology since the field's inception,(1) only recently has signaling theory become important to the evolutionary study of human behavior and culture.(2) Signaling theory's rise to prominence has been propelled mainly by applications of costly signaling theory,(3) which has shed light on a wide variety of human behaviors ranging from hunting(4) to religion.(5,6) Costly signaling rests on the idea that wasteful but highly visible traits and behaviors can be explained as honest indicators of underlying qualities that are otherwise difficult to detect. For example, a laborious hunting technique may serve as a display of skill on the part of the hunter, who may then be favorably perceived by potential mates and allies.(4) The costs of the activity ensure that the signal is honest, since unskilled hunters will not be able to perform as well. Despite the usefulness of this perspective, many such studies begin by documenting a costly behavior that is then explained with reference to costly signaling theory. Because such behaviors are easy to detect, they may be overemphasized in the literature.(7) Moreover, costly signaling theory by itself can explain neither all signals nor all aspects of signal design. In this review, we argue that a focus on the role that the psychology of the intended receiver plays in signal design can expand the scope of signaling theory as a promising avenue to explain human behavior.

The cultural evolution of prosocial religions

“…Hence, much of the available evidence allows BG religions to be interpreted as opportunistic manipulations of receiver psychology by royalty, priestly elites, and other dominant groups, which sometimes are able to harness the collective efforts of large groups (see Soler et al 2014). In the animal world, a growing literature explores how individuals take advantage of conspecifics by exploiting preexisting perceptual and sensory preferences (e.g., Arnqvist 2006;Guilford and Dawkins 1991).…”

Content, cost, and context: A framework for understanding human signaling systems

“…These factors can be elements of the physical environment (e.g., background noise, visibility) and the social environment (e.g., laws or social norms that shape receivers' baseline expectation of behavior). Consequently, some costs that are entailed in a signal may not be strategic costs (those that ensure that the signal is effective at promoting a beneficial response in the receiver) but instead may be efficacy costs (those costs that are necessary to simply ensure that the signal, regardless of its reliability, is encountered by the receiver) …”

“…Consequently, some costs that are entailed in a signal may not be strategic costs (those that ensure that the signal is effective at promoting a beneficial response in the receiver) but instead may be efficacy costs (those costs that are necessary to simply ensure that the signal, regardless of its reliability, is encountered by the receiver). 39,63,64 Studies of receiver psychology have shown that signals are often comprised of multiple elements: they may be "multimodal" (involving multiple sensory modalities) or "multicomponent" (occurring within the same sensory channel), [65][66][67][68][69] at least in part to ensure a signal's observability, robustness, and memorability. 63,65,66,70 The multiple elements of the sedge warbler's signaling system (including multiple songs and flight displays) are likely to have been selected for these reasons, as are the pageantry of religious rituals with their elaborate ceremonial procedures, costumes, chants, and songs.…”

“…While acknowledging the empirical challenges, we offer a framework that is intended to guide studies of human signals in all their diversity and complexity. In so doing, we build on earlier efforts to bring insights from behavioral ecology to anthropology, emphasizing the avenues for future research that are consequently opened.…”

The Big Gods of Exploitation? A Review of Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict by Ara Norenzayan (Princeton University Press, 2013)

“…An alternative interpretation is that instead of promoting cooperation within groups, Big Gods are instrumental in creating and maintaining social inequality. In such a scenario, the cognitive biases that underlie religious beliefs are manipulated by elites for their own advantage (see Soler et al 2014). In the natural world, there are many examples of exploitation of receiver psychology (i.e., Guilford and Dawkins 1990;Endler and Basolo 1998).…”