|
|
|
|
Figure 2:Two alternative explanations for an observation of 'deceptive' alarm calling. The
motivational model depends upon reflexive responses (perhaps attributable to associative
learning) and changes in arousal. The cognitive model postulates sophisticated mental
processing by both sender and receiver. Discriminating between these mechanisms requires
analyses of call meaning and audience effects.
Consider the problem of interpreting the following observation (Fig. 2). Bird A is approaching
bird B, which is feeding on a rare and highly-preferred food item. Bird A suddenly produces
an alarm call, normally associated with the appearance of a hunting raptor. Bird B responds by
dropping the food item and flying into cover nearby. Bird A then picks up and ingests the
food. This is clearly a case of deception in the functional sense: bird A has altered the
behaviour of bird B in such a way that it benefits and bird B does not. There are parallels
between such uses of vocal signals and traditional examples of deceptive signalling that involve
morphological characters, as in the case of Batesian mimicry. This analogy raises a series of
intriguing questions about the factors selecting for deceptive signals and for maintaining them
in the population over evolutionary time (Guilford and Dawkins, 1991, 1993). It does not
however, require us to infer that the alarm call is also deceptive in a cognitive sense. There are
several possible proximate explanations for bird A's behaviour. I have outlined two quite
different accounts, deliberately selected so as to illustrate the contrast between them.
The first explanation, which draws on ideas from classical ethology, is principally concerned
with motivational factors. Bird A approaches feeding companions and experiences an approach
/ avoidance conflict because it is attracted to the food but fearful of the potentially hostile
individual currently in possession of it. The motivational conflict triggers a reflexive alarm call.
|
|