| Title |
Irrationality in mate choice revealed by túngara frogs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1126/science.aab2012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda M Lea, Michael J Ryan |
| Abstract |
Mate choice models derive from traditional microeconomic decision theory and assume that individuals maximize their Darwinian fitness by making economically rational decisions. Rational choices exhibit regularity, whereby the relative strength of preferences between options remains stable when additional options are presented. We tested female frogs with three simulated males who differed in relative call attractiveness and call rate. In binary choice tests, females' preferences favored stimulus caller B over caller A; however, with the addition of an inferior "decoy" C, females reversed their preferences and chose A over B. These results show that the relative valuation of mates is not independent of inferior alternatives in the choice set and therefore cannot be explained with the rational choice models currently used in sexual selection theory. |
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 22% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 17% |
| Italy | 3 | 6% |
| Japan | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 39 | 72% |
| Scientists | 13 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Hungary | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 201 | 95% |
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 56 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 14% |
| Researcher | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 99 | 47% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
| Psychology | 10 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 26 | 12% |
| Unknown | 43 | 20% |