Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

The social significance of subtle signals

Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages 452–457 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Acts of prosociality, such as donating to charity, are often analysed in a similar way to acts of conspicuous advertising; both involve costly signals revealing hidden qualities that increase the signaller’s prestige. However, experimental work suggests that grand gestures, even if prosocial, may damage one’s reputation for trustworthiness and cooperativeness if they are perceived as prestige enhancing: individuals may gain some types of cooperative benefits only when they perform prosocial acts in particular ways. Here, we contrast subtle, less obviously costly, interpersonal forms of prosocial behaviour with high-cost displays to a large audience, drawing on the example of food sharing in subsistence economies. This contrast highlights how highly visible prosocial displays may be effective for attracting new partners, while subtle signals may be crucial for ensuring trust and commitment with long-term partners. Subtle dyadic signals may be key to understanding the long-term maintenance of interpersonal networks that function to reduce unanticipated risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Noë, R. & Hammerstein, P. Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35, 1–11 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sylwester, K. & Roberts, G. Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic games. Biol. Lett. 6, 659–662 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sylwester, K. & Roberts, G. Reputation-based partner choice is an effective alternative to indirect reciprocity in solving social dilemmas. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34, 201–206 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barclay, P. Competitive helping increases with the size of biological markets and invades defection. J. Theor. Biol. 281, 47–55 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Debove, S., André, J. B. & Baumard, N. Partner choice creates fairness in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20150392 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Debove, S., Baumard, N. & André, J. B. On the evolutionary origins of equity. PLoS ONE 12, e0173636 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hammerstein, P. & Noë, R. Biological trade and markets. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150101 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gambetta, D. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (B. Blackwell, Oxford, 1988).

  9. Nesse, R. M. (ed.) Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment (Russell Sage, New York, NY, 2001).

  10. Frank, R. H. Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions (Norton, New York, NY, 1988).

  11. Fuhrmann, M. & Sechser, T. S. Signaling alliance commitments: hand-tying and sunk costs in extended nuclear deterrence. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 919–935 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yamaguchi, M., Smith, A. & Ohtsubo, Y. Commitment signals in friendship and romantic relationships. Evol. Hum. Behav. 36, 467–474 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barclay, P. Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evol. Hum. Behav. 34, 164–175 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Raihani, N. J. & Barclay, P. Exploring the trade-off between quality and fairness in human partner choice. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160510 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Bracha, A. & Vesterlund, L. Mixed signals: charity reporting when donations signal generosity and income. Games Econ. Behav. 104, 24–42 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K. & Hurtado, M. It’s a wonderful life’: signaling generosity among the Ache of Paraguay. Evol. Hum. Behav. 21, 263–282 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bliege Bird, R., Scelza, B., Bird, D. W. & Smith, E. A. The hierarchy of virtue: mutualism, altruism and signaling in Martu women’s cooperative hunting. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 64–78 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bliege Bird, R. & Power, E. A. Prosocial signaling and cooperation among Martu hunters. Evol. Hum. Behav. 36, 389–397 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bourdieu, P. in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (ed. Richardson,J.) 241–258 (Greenwood Press, New York, NY, 1986).

  20. Lin, N. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, NY, 2001).

  21. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B. & Layton, J. B. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 7, e1000316 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hruschka, D. J. Friendship: Development, Ecology, and Evolution of a Relationship (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2010).

  23. Lyle, H. F. & Smith, E. A. The reputational and social network benefits of prosociality in an Andean community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4820–4825 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim, D. A., Benjamin, E. J., Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A. Social connectedness is associated with fibrinogen level in a human social network. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20160958 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dunbar, R. I. M. Breaking bread: the functions of social eating. Adapt. Hum. Behav. Physiol. 3, 1–14 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Page, A. E. et al. Hunter-gatherer social networks and reproductive success. Sci. Rep. 7, 1153 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Silk, J. B. et al. The benefits of social capital: close social bonds among female baboons enhance offspring survival. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 3099–3104 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jaeggi, A. V. & Van Schaik, C. P. The evolution of food sharing in primates. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 2125–2140 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jaeggi, A. V. & Gurven, M. Natural cooperators: food sharing in humans and other primates. Evol. Anthropol. Issues News Rev. 22, 186–195 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. McFarland, R. et al. The ‘strength of weak ties’ among female baboons: fitness-related benefits of social bonds. Anim. Behav. 126, 101–106 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Akerlof, G. A. The market for’ lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84, 488–500 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Grafen, A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144, 517–546 (1990).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Grafen, A. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144, 473–516 (1990).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Zahavi, A. Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–214 (1975).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gintis, H., Smith, E. A. & Bowles, S. Costly signaling and cooperation. J. Theor. Biol. 213, 103–119 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Smith, E. A. & Bliege Bird, R. in Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation inEconomic Life (eds Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. & Fehr, E.) 115–148 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).

  37. Barclay, P. & Willer, R. Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 749–753 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Berman, J. Z., Levine, E. E., Barasch, A. & Small, D. A. The braggart’s dilemma: on the social rewards and penalties of advertising prosocial behavior. J. Mark. Res. 52, 90–104 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hoffman, M., Yoeli, E. & Nowak, M. A. Cooperate without looking: why we care what people think and not just what they do. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1727–1732 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Jordan, J. J., Hoffman, M., Nowak, M. A. & Rand, D. G. Uncalculating cooperation is used to signal trustworthiness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8658–8663 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Przepiorka, W. & Liebe, U. Generosity is a sign of trustworthiness—the punishment of selfishness is not. Evol. Hum. Behav. 37, 255–262 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gambetta, D. & Przepiorka, W. Natural and strategic generosity as signals of trustworthiness. PloS ONE 9, e97533 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Silk, J. B. in Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment (ed. Nesse, R. M.) 138–157 (Russell Sage, New York, NY, 2001).

  44. Silk, J. B. in Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation (ed. Hammerstein, P.) 37–54 (MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, 2003).

  45. Hurd, P. L. & Enquist, M. A strategic taxonomy of biological communication. Anim. Behav. 70, 1155–1170 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Searcy, W. A. & Nowicki, S. The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling Systems (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005).

  47. Számadó, S. The cost of honesty and the fallacy of the handicap principle. Anim. Behav. 81, 3–10 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zollman, K. J. S. Finding alternatives to handicap theory. Biol. Theory 8, 127–132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Silk, J. B., Kaldor, E. & Boyd, R. Cheap talk when interests conflict. Anim. Behav. 59, 423–432 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Macfarlan, S. J. & Lyle, H. F. Multiple reputation domains and cooperative behaviour in two Latin American communities. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20150009 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Macfarlan, S. J., Quinlan, R. & Remiker, M. Cooperative behaviour and prosocial reputation dynamics in a Dominican village. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20130557 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bliege Bird, R., Smith, E. A. & Bird, D. W. The hunting handicap: costly signaling in human foraging strategies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50, 9–19 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Smith, E. A., Bliege Bird, R. & Bird, D. W. The benefits of costly signaling: Meriam turtle hunters. Behav. Ecol. 14, 116–126 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Nolin, D. A. Food-sharing networks in Lamalera, Indonesia: status, sharing, and signaling. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 334–345 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F. & Blurton Jones, N. G. Hadza meat sharing. Evol. Hum. Behav. 22, 113–142 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Gurven, M., Hill, K., Kaplan, H., Hurtado, A. & Lyles, R. Food transfers among Hiwi foragers of Venezuela: tests of reciprocity. Hum. Ecol. 28, 171–218 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Endicott, K. in Hunters and Gatherers Vol. 2: Property, Power and Ideology (eds Ingold, D., Riches, T. & Woodburn, J.) 110–127 (Berg, Oxford, 1988).

  58. Blurton Jones, N. G. Demography and Evolutionary Ecology of Hadza Hunter-Gatherers 71 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2016).

  59. Bliege Bird, R., Bird, D. W., Smith, E. A. & Kushnick, G. C. Risk and reciprocity in Meriam food sharing. Evol. Hum. Behav. 23, 297–321 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bliege Bird, R. & Bird, D. W. Why women hunt. Curr. Anthropol. 49, 655–693 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gurven, M. To give and to give not: the behavioral ecology of human food transfers. Behav. Brain Sci. 27, 543–559 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Jaeggi, A.V. & Gurven, M. Reciprocity explains food sharing in humans and other primates independent of kin selection and tolerated scrounging: a phylogenetic meta-analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20131615 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bodenhorn, B. in The Social Economy of Sharing: Resource Allocation and ModernHunter Gatherers (eds Wenzel, G., Hovelsrud-Broda, G. & Kishigami, N.) 27–60 (Senri Ethnological Studies, Osaka, 2000).

  64. Bird, D. W., Bliege Bird, R., Codding, B. F. & Taylor, N. A landscape architecture of fire: cultural emergence and ecological pyrodiversity in Australia’s Western Desert. Curr. Anthropol. 57, S65–S79 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Gurven, M., Hill, K. & Jakugi, F. Why do foragers share and sharers forage? Explanations of the social dimensions of foraging. Res. Econ. Anthropol. 23, 19–43 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Macfarlan, S. J., Remiker, M. & Quinlan, R. Competitive altruism explains labor exchange variation in a Dominican community. Curr. Anthropol. 53, 118–124 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Stegmann, U. E. Animal Communication Theory: Information and Influence (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013).

  68. Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S. & Christakis, N. A. Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19193–19198 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Nishi, A., Shirado, H., Rand, D. G. & Christakis, N. A. Inequality and visibility of wealth in experimental social networks. Nature 526, 426–429 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang, J., Suri, S. & Watts, D. J. Cooperation and assortativity with dynamic partner updating. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14363–14368 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ohtsuki, H., Iwasa, Y. & Nowak, M. A. Reputation effects in public and private interactions. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004527 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Melamed, D. & Simpson, B. Strong ties promote the evolution of cooperation in dynamic networks. Soc. Netw. 45, 32–44 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sutcliffe, A. G., Dunbar, R. I. M. & Wang, D. Modelling the evolution of social structure. PLoS ONE 11, e0158605 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Power, E. A. Social support networks and religiosity in rural South India. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0057 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Bowser, B. J. & Patton, J. Q. in The Evolution of Leadership: Transitions in Decision Making from Small-Scale to Middle-Range Societies (eds Vaughn, K. J., Eerkens, J. W. & Kantner, J.) 51–71 (School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, 2010).

  76. Kivelä, M. et al. Multilayer networks. J. Complex Netw. 2, 203–271 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Jackson, M. O., Rodriguez-Barraquer, T. & Tan, X. Social capital and social quilts: network patterns of favor exchange. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 1857–1897 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Nolin, D. A. Food-sharing networks in Lamalera, Indonesia: reciprocity, kinship, and distance. Hum. Nat. 21, 243–268 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Nolin, D. Kin preference and partner choice. Hum. Nat. 22, 156–176 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A. Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature 481, 497–501 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Hooper, P. L., DeDeo, S., Caldwell Hooper, A. E., Gurven, M. & Kaplan, H. S. Dynamical structure of a traditional Amazonian social network. Entropy 15, 4932–4955 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kasper, C. & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. Who helps and why?: Cooperative networks in Mpimbwe. Curr. Anthropol. 56, 701–732 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Dyble, M. et al. Networks of food sharing reveal the functional significance of multilevel sociality in two hunter-gatherer groups. Curr. Biol. 26, 2017–2021 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Koster, J. M. & Leckie, G. Food sharing networks in lowland Nicaragua: an application of the social relations model to count data. Soc. Netw. 38, 100–110 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ziker, J. P., Rasmussen, J. & Nolin, D. A. Indigenous Siberians solve collective action problems through sharing and traditional knowledge. Sustain. Sci. 11, 45–55 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ready, E. & Power, E.A. Why wage earners hunt: food sharing, social structure, and influence in an Arctic mixed economy. Curr. Anthropol 59, 74–97 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Mauss, M. The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (Free Press, Glencoe, IL, 1954).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Rebecca Bliege Bird

  2. Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Elspeth Ready

  3. Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Eleanor A. Power

Authors
  1. Rebecca Bliege Bird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elspeth Ready
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eleanor A. Power
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Bliege Bird.

Ethics declarations

Acknowledgements

The research results reported in Box 1 were supported by National Science Foundation BCS 1459880.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bliege Bird, R., Ready, E. & Power, E.A. The social significance of subtle signals. Nat Hum Behav 2, 452–457 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0298-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0298-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing