ANIMALCOMMUNICATION
Signals given in the animal kingdom are never honest
Animal communication, unlike human communication, could be anything that conveys some meaning or intelligence to the other animal or bird. Zoo semiotics today is part of nature ecology, environmentalism and animal sociology and cognition. Understanding animal behaviour, conversational patterns and the psychological and traditional compulsions behind their behaviour are increasingly becoming a fascinating and educational field of study. These communications mirror the difficulties, fears, anxieties, identities, physical illness, pain, trauma, stress disorder and call for rescue. Signals could be reliable or deceptive according to the circumstances and need of the sender. This area was not explored much earlier; but now has been accepted that animal world is full of deceitful signals, targeting the receiver, or sometimes even a third party. All such deceitful signals are for the benefit of the sender. Scholars in the field now accept that animals are capable of deceiving just like humans, although animals do it for their survival and benefit.
There are many biological signalling models even in deceitful communications. There are areas of communication when the interests of the involved parties overlap or diverge, or both and this could result in distorted or mistaken signals, although they cannot be termed as absolutely deceitful. Signalling that are deceitful can happen when the interests oppose especially so, between the sexes. This study tries to answer how reliable these signals are, how they are interacted, to what extent they are perceived as deceitful signals, how do the receivers respond to the deceit, to what extent they convey information, what costs do such signals incur, what are the uses of deceptive communications etc. It also studies how these signalling could result in the broader social environment. Main thrust is on the deception and honesty in animal world communication and how it works under situations like mating, parenting, aggression, danger, deceitful social behaviour etc. Most social relationships depend on the reactions to the others’ movements and this is a highly developed tendency as these animals are very sensitive and react even to the slightest of the signs, (Tinbergen, 1953, p.54).
Animal communication has been known for centuries; but as a branch of educational study, it is coming up only in the last few years. The information sent by the caller and received by the receiver, which could be called a signal of one way or other, is the main crux of the communication. The process involves either two or more. Usually the communication is between the two, which might be eavesdropped by another, or might be taken advantage by a third party, for example: a predator, or might harm or benefit yet another party. There are instances of the sender sending purposeful misinformation and mostly in the vulnerable species, honest communication is dominated by the misinformation. This is perhaps because of the vulnerability and the need of cunningness to survive and flourish under difficult circumstances. Contrary to the earlier knowledge, now it is accepted that the animal kingdom has used deceitful communication with great results from the beginning of evolution. Actually it is a part of the evolutionary process.
A deceitful sound production, just as the genuine one, depends on the production of vibrations, their modulation and resonance that could be compared to the guitar string mode. They depend on the time taken, and at times, on the post-vibration modification. Naturally the terrestrial animals and aquatic animals have varieties of sound production systems and very rarely they are identical. The sound propagation could be distorted in frequency sphere; but could be also done purposely to deceive the receiver. As it is the medium absorption, scattering, boundary reflections, refraction, spectral changes, reverberations can lead to pattern loss. Animals can design to reduce or increase the distortions on will and depending on the type of signal. This shows the animal capability of modification and alteration of the signals according to the necessity. This also shows that the deceit is on purpose and not as a conventional method. The animal or bird launching on to a deceitful signalling is fully aware of its deceit and does it with complete knowledge. Some of the signalling could be lost under adverse circumstances. Proper signalling depends on the sound reception, light requisites, visibility, sense, hearing, physical constraints, resonant frequencies, light through different media and boundaries, light and matter interaction, colours, intensity etc. and it is difficult to have all of them in the right perceptive at all times. Communication efficiency could be affected by noice, self-interference, environmental degradation and conspecific interference, (Espmark, 2000, p.24).
A lamb investigates a rabbit, an example of interspecific communication through body language and scent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication
Animal communication, as mentioned earlier, could be deceitful and sometimes, downright dangerous. Signal honesty cannot be expected beyond a limit from the animal species, because to the particular sender, it could be a difficult situation, although need not be so always. If there is a conflict of interest and the situation calls for it, the signals forsake honesty and become deceitful. For example, a situation of a courting pair where the male benefits by mating regardless of his suitability, (Bradbury, 1998, p.649). Here a deceitful signal could do the trick and honesty would not work. Honesty against cheating in communication, if carefully considered, perhaps cheating would take priority, because it is so regularly used by animals for their own benefit. It portrays the shrewdness in the sender and the naïve acceptance of the receiver and thus amounts to the innocent recipient. Thus deceit implies to receiver error and the reverse need not b e true, (Bradbury, p.650). Because in the opposite case, the sender could be sending an honest communication and the receiver, for his benefit, might be distorting it and receiving its deceitful version. Here the value of the signal is negative for the sender, while for the receiver it is positive, from his point of view, (ibid). Naïve acceptance can lead to loss, danger and bereavement, although it need not harm the sender who has done so with the full knowledge of the possible results. This shows that the animal kingdom could be schemers when they choose to be so. Communicating one’s emotional status to others is the main function of animal communication and this is in line with Darwin’s major findings, (Hauser, 1999, p.5).
Signaling at a nest. Studies of social communication in animals often use social insects such as the European paper wasp (Polistes dominulus).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5801/927/F1
Honest signalling happens when the sender is sure of his need and there are no contenders to it. Or it could be a clear case of terror and danger, where the honest signal depicts the urgent need of assistance and guidance. Also in the case of mating, where it goes uncontested and both the sexes are sure of their respective partners, mostly the signalling is very honest. Earlier most ecological studies thought that animal signals were all honest; but we know now that it is not the case, because any sender who wears his heart on his coat sleeve could be exploited and deprived by a conniving receiver, (Bradbury, p.651). Honest signalling perhaps is the most appreciated action of the animal world. Honesty is considered to be ecological and social and somehow, it was accepted that every signalling is honest and expresses a certain genuine need or happiness. When we say that the lark is singing, it is difficult to realise that the lark could be sending a deceitful signal that would be gratifying to the lark and bode danger to the receiver. This does not mean that there are no happy calls or genuine signalling in the animal region. There are expressions of joy, genuine parenting, careful consideration of the family needs etc. that are completely genuine. But the animal kingdom cannot afford to be genuine at all occasions.
Usually it is agreed that honesty and courtship go hand in hand. This need not be so, always. A lot depends on the female choice and motive. Sometimes even the male could be choosy and might hope for a particular female, disregarding the other females. Then there are matters of hierarchy and rank, which is very difficult to ignore in the animal life. Females have various reasons to shift their choice of a mate. The choice need not be always the same and each individual female could have a diverse reason in choosing her mate, depending on the survival of her future brood, certainty of the male’s capacity to look after the family, possibilities of harassment within the region, and good genes for the offspring and many more. It is never easy for the female to make a decision without weighing all the pros and cons, because amongst animals, a lot depends on the female choice of a mate. For the right choice, she would send honest signals for the chosen one, and deceitful signals for the persisting suitors whom she has already declined and wants to disperse without bothering her any more. This means she will be sending both genuine and deceitful signals almost simultaneously, hoping that the genuine signal would be picked up by her intended male and the deceitful signals would be heard by the unwanted males in the area, who would interpret it in their own way and go in search of other available females. But she would try to dissuade a showdown and here such intentions depend upon the clever signalling of the female and the naïve acceptance of her suitors. This is why it is considered that the deceit signal always results in the loss of something or other for the receiver. It would be as small as losing some food, or as serious as losing the life. This could be the case with the males too, who have their own preferences and necessities. They have strategic signalling to achieve their ends; but need not always be successful in it. They definitely try to succeed through deceitful signalling, which might or might not work in their favour. Here the deceit is a means to the desired end. As sexual selection is one of the most important happenings of the animal life, deceitful signalling attains immense significance.
When we come to the cost of the signalling, we realise that there are many kinds of costs involved here. For honest courtship signalling, male fitness and this means there is a fitness cost involved. Higher quality, greater fitness, sometimes reflected in badge wearing. The badge wearing male is expected to have the corresponding capabilities to win his coveted positions, because females could use the badge size or colour as an indicator of his health, virility or strength. The same principle applies to honesty and begging, where a certain action of the receiver would benefit the sender. There can be errors and evolutionary signals and these could adversely affect the honesty of the sender. Another case of distortion of aim and purpose in signalling could occur when there are multiple senders and a single receiver. This once again connects to the constant and honest beggars and the cost for the receiver in honouring such begging.
Deceit also could be the provision of incorrect sender information which has a positive value for the sender, but a negative value for the receiver, (Bradbury, p.674). Deceits could include lies, not expressing all the information and withholding part of it with the intention of self-gratification, not signalling when needed and signalling when it is beneficial to self, exaggerating a situation beyond truth, bluff by indicating something that does not exist, for example: a rank, using attenuators making it more difficult for the receiver to understand and interpret all can come under deceitful signalling.
The signal costs could be assessed in terms of energy, performance, development and also the costs in terms of communication received by the third parties who are unconnected to the initial communication intent. The value of the signals determines the sender and receiver’s involvement in it. It is difficult to assess this value before the signal is sent and received from the other end. Also it connects to the common interest of the sender and the receiver. This does not mean that the signalling cannot happen if such common interest does not exist. Still the receiver will suffer an incidental cost by receiving the signal whether he is receptive or not. Even the erroneous decisions, defaults, errors, wrong intentions still derive a cost from sometimes both the sender and the receiver. Incidental costs will prevail if there is a sender-receiver conflict.
A Chihuahua baring his teeth at the threat of having his bone taken away
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do_not_take_his_bone.jpg
There are sender necessary costs that cannot be avoided and this includes visual conspicuousness cost to predators and parasites, by making his presence seen or heard and exposing himself to danger or unnatural attention. The long-distance sender, who signals continuously and noisily, can suffer a very high risk of being noticed and attacked by a predator which is equivalent to the danger of a visual sender, (Bradbury, p.546).
In addition there could be olfactory conspicuousness costs by leaving an olfactory trial that could be followed by a predator. There are energetic costs of signalling, which are usually combined with the visual signals for the territory or the mate. Auditory signals could attract attention, make the sender lose energy and time. Chemical signals can lead to body loss as the production of the signal is metabolically connected. Sender constraints enhance the sender incidental costs. There are receiver costs too which can show in the form of harassment and vulnerability to predation and loss of time. Receiver incidental costs could be very high if the signals are a deceit. Receivers also suffer from phylogenetic constraints, especially the visual receivers. Auditory receivers too can suffer, but to a lesser degree. Chemical receivers can suffer from memory constraints and other transmission constraints could be dangerous to the receivers. The necessary costs could be many from both the sides. However, the sender costs are considered to be higher in genuine signalling, whereas, receiver costs could be considerably higher in deceit. Visual communication has the constraint of receiver’s eye capability, while the auditory communication has a wider range. Chemical communication is the least costly as it is usually intended to the immediate person around.
The importance of the communication, genuine or otherwise, does not rest only with the sender. The response of the receiver is as important as the communication sent by the sender without which the communication could be lost and wasted. Today we have various approaches of studying the communication like acoustic signalling by humpback whales etc. Studies are also conducted with reference to the costs and benefits of sexual calls, their balance and breadth, visual signalling etc. It is an intricate science that studies the production, transmission and the signal receptions. Properties of these sounds and their longitudinal and transverse waves and the sound pressures create some of the difference between genuine and deceit calls, though not always recognisable. The same goes to the sound intensity and the effects of sound propagation. The spreading of the sound and the inherent loss therein, medium absorption reflective and interactive scattering are different to some extent, from call to call. Emergency signals could be deceitful too and sometimes, they are compound and aperiodic signals.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Bradbury, Jack W. and Vehrencamp, Sandra L. (1998), Principles of Animal Communication, Sunderland, Sinauer Associates.
- Espmark, Yngve et al (2000), Animal Signals, Trodheim, Tapir Academic Press.
- Hauser, Marc D. and Konishi, Mark (1999), The Design of Animal Communication, Cambridge, MIT Press.
- Tinbergen, N. (1953), Social Behaviour in Animals, London, Methuen.
ONLINE SOURCES
- http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5801/927/F1
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do_not_take_his_bone.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication