Mate choice copying in non-human animals: an update of two meta-analyses
- 1Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Collaboration for Open Science and Synthesis in Ecology and Evolution (COSSEE), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada
- 2Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Biology, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland
Abstract
Mate choice copying, the use of social information from others' mating decisions, is a taxonomically widespread form of social learning that can shape sexual selection. Two meta-analyses concluded that social information has a moderate positive effect on mate choice; however, both are based on literature searches that are now at least 7 years old. We asked whether the overall average effect they reported remains supported. Using a multilingual, grey-literature-inclusive search across seven languages, we added 69 effect sizes from 29 studies and harmonised the two source metrics, giving 227 Hedges' g effect sizes from 87 studies and 172 log odds ratios from 69 studies across 33 species. Reanalysed with phylogenetically informed multilevel models, the overall effect remained positive and significant but was appreciably smaller [Hedges' g=0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25 to 0.66, versus 0.58; odds ratio=1.81, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.45, versus 2.71]. Heterogeneity was high, located within studies and among species rather than across the phylogeny. Small-study effects were strong on both scales, and correcting for them drew the mean towards zero. In some species, individuals do copy conspecifics' mate choices, but the effect is smaller, more variable, and more sensitive to publication bias than previously estimated.
Related
- ELiAH2: update of the atlas of E3 ligases in human tissues by integrating tissue-specificity and docking properties of ligands for targeted protein degradation
- An update on human visual prosthesis: The Claes H. Dohlman lecture 2025
- One Health genomic surveillance of ticks found on community-dwelling non-human ‘farm’ animals to identify microbes associated with tick borne illnesses in Eastern Ontario
- HGVD: Human Genetic Variation Database update 2026 with sequencing of 4344 genetically diverse Japanese individuals
- A representation of the visual environment in the human basolateral amygdala supports learning and choice
BibTeX
@article{santos2026mate,
title = {{Mate choice copying in non-human animals: an update of two meta-analyses}},
author = {Eduardo S. A. Santos and Aleksandra Milenović and Aneta Arct and Anna Lenz and Ayumi Mizuno and Cassidy Schneider and Christine Sosiak and Erick Lundgren and Hao Qin and Iwo Gross and Jimuel Celeste and Kyle Morrison and Mahi Zakir and Marija Purgar and Santiago Ortega and Sergio Hernandez and Shinichi Nakagawa and Malgorzata Lagisz},
journal = {Biology Open},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1242/bio.062878},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.062878},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Mate choice copying in non-human animals: an update of two meta-analyses
AU - Eduardo S. A. Santos
AU - Aleksandra Milenović
AU - Aneta Arct
AU - Anna Lenz
AU - Ayumi Mizuno
AU - Cassidy Schneider
AU - Christine Sosiak
AU - Erick Lundgren
AU - Hao Qin
AU - Iwo Gross
AU - Jimuel Celeste
AU - Kyle Morrison
AU - Mahi Zakir
AU - Marija Purgar
AU - Santiago Ortega
AU - Sergio Hernandez
AU - Shinichi Nakagawa
AU - Malgorzata Lagisz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/20
JO - Biology Open
DO - 10.1242/bio.062878
UR - https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.062878
AB - Mate choice copying, the use of social information from others' mating decisions, is a taxonomically widespread form of social learning that can shape sexual selection. Two meta-analyses concluded that social information has a moderate positive effect on mate choice; however, both are based on literature searches that are now at least 7 years old. We asked whether the overall average effect they reported remains supported. Using a multilingual, grey-literature-inclusive search across seven languages, we added 69 effect sizes from 29 studies and harmonised the two source metrics, giving 227 Hedges' g effect sizes from 87 studies and 172 log odds ratios from 69 studies across 33 species. Reanalysed with phylogenetically informed multilevel models, the overall effect remained positive and significant but was appreciably smaller [Hedges' g=0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25 to 0.66, versus 0.58; odds ratio=1.81, 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.45, versus 2.71]. Heterogeneity was high, located within studies and among species rather than across the phylogeny. Small-study effects were strong on both scales, and correcting for them drew the mean towards zero. In some species, individuals do copy conspecifics' mate choices, but the effect is smaller, more variable, and more sensitive to publication bias than previously estimated.
SN - 2046-6390
ER -