Analysis of the accuracy and consistency of the behavioral ecology literature that investigates Tinbergen’s question “What does the behavior exist for?”

in Animal Biology
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Tinbergen’s question “What does the behavior exist for?” has contributed to the establishment of behavioral ecology. However, communication within this discipline could be impaired if one does not realize that the question may refer to distinct temporal scopes. Answering it requires specific methodological approaches for each scope: different interpretations of the question refer to different processes. Here we evaluate whether the behavioral ecology literature avoids these pitfalls. We analyze a sample of the articles related to Tinbergen’s question, evaluating if they: precisely delimit the temporal scope of the question; use methodology appropriate to the temporal scope of the article; accurately define the terms used to refer to the survival value of behavior; and use the terms consistently. Additionally, we evaluate whether the citation of these articles is impaired by misinterpretations regarding the temporal scope and terms associated with the question. Of the 22 analyzed articles, three present problems in defining the time of the question, but in the other 19, methods suited to the time studied were used. Four terms (fitness, effect, adaptation, and function) were used to refer to the utility of the behavior, but only one article defined all of them. We found no communication problems in the citing process regarding the time of interest of the question and the terms used to refer to the usefulness of the behavior in the 16 analyzed citation events. Low/medium- and high-impact articles were similar in terms of the problems found. We suggest future articles should define the terms used, in order to avoid miscommunication in the field.

Analysis of the accuracy and consistency of the behavioral ecology literature that investigates Tinbergen’s question “What does the behavior exist for?”

in Animal Biology



AmundsonR.A. (1996) Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In: M.R. Rose & G.V. Lauder (Eds) Adaptation pp. 11-53. Academic PressSan Diego, CA, USA.

BatesonP.P. & LalandK.N. (2013a) On current utility and adaptive significance: a response to Nesse. Trends Ecol. Evol.2682-683.

BatesonP.P. & LalandK.N. (2013b) Tinbergen’s four questions: an appreciation and an update. Trends Ecol. Evol.28712-718.

BeeryA.K. & FrancisD.D. (2011) Adaptive significance of natural variations in maternal care in rats: a translational perspective. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.351552-1561.

BolhuisJ.J. (2004) Biography of a brilliant birdwatcher. Science3031140-1141.

BolhuisJ.J. (2005) Function and mechanism in neuroecology: looking for clues. Anim. Biol.55457-479.

Borgerhoff-MulderM. (2013) Human behavioral ecology. Behav. Ecol.241042-1043.

BurkhardtR.W. (2014) Tribute to Tinbergen: putting Niko Tinbergen’s ‘four questions’ in historical context. Ethology120215-223.

CalisiR.M. (2014) An integrative overview of the role of gonadotropin-inhibitory hormone in behavior: applying Tinbergen’s four questions. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol.20395-105.

CuthillI.C. (2005) The study of function in behavioural ecology. Anim. Biol.55399-417.

DawkinsM.S. (2014) Tribute to Tinbergen: questions and how to answer them. Ethology120120-122.

GibsonB.M. & Kamil A.C. (2009) The synthetic approach to the study of spatial memory: have we properly addressed Tinbergen’s “four questions”? Behav. Proc.80278-287.

GouldS.J. & LewontinR.C. (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B205581-598.

GouldS.J. & VrbaE.S. (1982) Exaptation: a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology84-15.

GrossM.R. (1994) The evolution of behavioral ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol.9358-360.

HansonH.C.NeedhamJ.G.TaylorW.P.VestalA.G. & AllenW.E. (1931) Ecological nomenclature. Science74648-649.

Herrando-PérezS.DeleaS.BrookB.W. & BradshawC.J. (2012) Density dependence: an ecological Tower of Babel. Oecologia170585-603.

Herrando-PérezS.BrookB.W. & BradshawC.J. (2014a) Clarity and precision of language are a necessary route in ecology. BioScience64373-374.

Herrando-PérezS.BrookB.W. & BradshawC.J. (2014b) Ecology needs a convention of nomenclature. BioScience64311-321.

HodgesK.E. (2008) Defining the problem: terminology and progress in ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ.635-42.

HuxleyJ.S. (1942) Evolution: the Modern Synthesis. MIT PressLondon, UK.

JaxK. (2008) Concepts, not terms. Front. Ecol. Environ.6178-179.

LarsonA. & LososJ.B. (1991) Phylogenetic systematics of adaptation. In: M.R. Rose & G.V. Lauder (Eds) Adaptation pp. 187-220. Academic PressSan Diego, CA, USA.

MagnussonW.E. (2014) “Population” and “community” are still not useful to conservation biology – reply to Prado & El-Hani 2013. Nat. Conservação1289-90.

MayrE.W. (1961) Cause and effect in biology. Science1341501-1506.

MonaghanP. (2014) Behavioral ecology and the successful integration of function and mechanism. Behav. Ecol.251019-1021.

NesseR.M. (2013) Tinbergen’s four questions, organized: a response to Bateson and Laland. Trends Ecol. Evol.28681-682.

NielsenR. (2009) Adaptionism – 30 years after Gould and Lewontin. Evolution632487-2490.

OpthofT. (1997) Sense and nonsense about the impact factor. Cardiovasc. Res.331-7.

QuinnG.P. & KeoughM.J. (2002) Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University PressCambridge, UK.

RouxE. (2014) The concept of function in modern physiology. J. Physiol.5922245-2249.

TaborskyM. (2014) Tribute to Tinbergen: the four problems of biology. A critical appraisal. Ethology120224-227.

TinbergenN.N. (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschr. Tierpsychol.20410-433.

WhittakerR.H. (1957) Two ecological glossaries and a proposal on nomenclature. Ecology38371.

ArnqvistG.NilssonT. & KatvalaM. (2005) Mating rate and fitness in female bean weevils. Behav. Ecol.16123-127.

BlanckenhornW.U.HoskenD.J.MartinO.Y.ReimC.TeuschlY. & WardP.I. (2002) The costs of matings in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol.13353-358.

CooperW.E. (1999) Tradeoffs between courtship, fighting, and antipredatory behavior by a lizard Eumeces laticeps. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.4754-59.

den HollanderM. & GwynneD.T. (2009) Female fitness consequences of male harassment and copulation in seed beetles, Callosobruchus maculates. Anim. Behav.781061-1070.

DmitriewC. & BlanckenhornW.U. (2012) The role of sexual selection and conflict in mediating among-population variation in mating strategies and sexually dimorphic traits in Sepsis punctum. PLoS One71-10.

EdvardssonM.Rodríguez-MuñozR. & TregenzaT. (2008) No evidence that female bruchid beetles, Callosobruchus maculatus, use remating to reduce costs of inbreeding. Anim. Behav.751519-1524.

FoxC.W.StillwellR.C.WallinW.G. & HitchcockL.J. (2006) Temperature and host species affect nuptial gift size in a seed-feeding beetle. Funct. Ecol.201003-1011.

GerlachG. & BartmannS. (2002) Reproductive skew, costs, and benefits of cooperative breeding in female wood mice (Apodemus sylvaticus). Behav. Ecol.13408-418.

GuedesR.N. & SmithR.H. (2008) Competition strategies and correlated selection on responses to polyandry in the seed beetle Callosobruchus maculates. Physiol. Entomol.33372-381.

LeeseJ.M.SnekserJ.L. & ItzkowitzM. (2010) Interactions of natural and sexual selection: damselfish prioritize brood defense with male-male competition or courtship. Behaviour14737-52.

MaklakovA.A. & LubinY. (2006) Indirect genetic benefits of polyandry in a spider with direct costs of mating. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.6131-38.

McLachlanA.LadleR. & BleayC. (1999) Is infestation the result of adaptive choice behaviour by the parasite? A study of mites and midges. Anim. Behav.58615-620.

McNamaraK.B.BrownR.L.ElgarM.A. & JonesT.M. (2008) Paternity costs from polyandry compensated by increased fecundity in the hide beetle. Behav. Ecol.19433-440.

MuhlhauserC. & BlanckenhornW.U. (2002) The costs of avoiding matings in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol.13359-365.

PikeT.W. (2006) Fitness effects of parasite-mediated spatial heterogeneity within a swarm. Behav. Ecol.17992-997.

RonnJ.KatvalaM. & ArnqvistG. (2007) Coevolution between harmful male genitalia and female resistance in seed beetles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA10410921-10925.

SantangeloN.ItzkowitzM.RichterM. & HaleyM.P. (2002) Resource attractiveness of the male beaugregory damselfish and his decision to court or defend. Behav. Ecol.13676-681.

SchradinC. & PillayN. (2004) The striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) from the Succulent Karoo, South Africa: a territorial group-living solitary forager with communal breeding and helpers at the nest. J. Comp. Psychol.11837-47.

SilkJ.B.AlbertsS.C. & AltmannJ. (2006) Social relationships among adult female baboons (Papio cynocephalus) II. Variation in the quality and stability of social bonds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol.61197-204.

WardP.I. (2000) Cryptic female choice in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria (L.). Evolution541680-1686.

WhartonK.E.DyerF.C.HuangZ.Y. & GettyT. (2007) The honeybee queen influences the regulation of colony drone production. Behav. Ecol.181092-1099.

WhartonK.E.DyerF.C. & GettyT. (2008) Male elimination in the honeybee. Behav. Ecol.191075-1079.


  • View in gallery

    Analysis of 22 behavioral ecology articles that evaluated the question “What does the behavior exist for?” regarding: the time for which the question was asked; and the terms used to refer to the utility of behavior.

  • View in gallery

    Analysis of communication problems in 16 citation events in the behavioral ecology literature that deals with the question “What does the behavior exist for?” regarding precision of the quoting article related to the formulation of the question and the terms used to refer to it.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 28 28 13
Full Text Views 15 15 8
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 3 3 2