Skip to main content
PMC home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Jul 22;271(1547):1435–1442. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2753

Avian psychology and communication.

Candy Rowe 1, John Skelhorn 1
PMCID: PMC1691757  PMID: 15306314

Abstract

The evolution of animal communication is a complex issue and one that attracts much research and debate. 'Receiver psychology' has been highlighted as a potential selective force, and we review how avian psychological processes and biases can influence the evolution and design of signals as well as the progress that has been made in testing these ideas in behavioural studies. Interestingly, although birds are a focal group for experimental psychologists and behavioural ecologists alike, the integration of theoretical ideas from psychology into studies of communication has been relatively slow. However, recent operant experiments are starting to address how birds perceive and respond to complex natural signals in an attempt to answer evolutionary problems in communication. This review outlines how a psychological approach to understanding communication is useful, and we hope that it stimulates further research addressing the role of psychological mechanisms in signal evolution.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (109.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Basolo A. L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science. 1990 Nov 9;250(4982):808–810. doi: 10.1126/science.250.4982.808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bond Alan B., Kamil Alan C. Visual predators select for crypticity and polymorphism in virtual prey. Nature. 2002 Feb 7;415(6872):609–613. doi: 10.1038/415609a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chaiken M., Gentner T. Q., Hulse S. H. Effects of social interaction on the development of starling song and the perception of these effects by conspecifics. J Comp Psychol. 1997 Dec;111(4):379–392. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.111.4.379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cook N. D. Artefact or network evolution? Nature. 1995 Mar 23;374(6520):313–314. doi: 10.1038/374313a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Daly M, Wilson MI. Human evolutionary psychology and animal behaviour. Anim Behav. 1999 Mar;57(3):509–519. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.1027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dawkins M. S. Are there general principles of signal design? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1993 May 29;340(1292):251–255. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1993.0065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dawkins M. S., Guilford T. An exaggerated preference for simple neural network models of signal evolution? Proc Biol Sci. 1995 Sep 22;261(1362):357–360. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Enquist M., Arak A. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature. 1993 Feb 4;361(6411):446–448. doi: 10.1038/361446a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Enquist M., Arak A. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):169–172. doi: 10.1038/372169a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Esch H. E., Zhang S., Srinivasan M. V., Tautz J. Honeybee dances communicate distances measured by optic flow. Nature. 2001 May 31;411(6837):581–583. doi: 10.1038/35079072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gamberale G., Tullberg B. S. Evidence for a peak-shift in predator generalization among aposematic prey. Proc Biol Sci. 1996 Oct 22;263(1375):1329–1334. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1996.0195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gentner T. Q., Hulse S. H., Bentley G. E., Ball G. F. Individual vocal recognition and the effect of partial lesions to HVc on discrimination, learning, and categorization of conspecific song in adult songbirds. J Neurobiol. 2000 Jan;42(1):117–133. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4695(200001)42:1<117::aid-neu11>3.0.co;2-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gentner T. Q., Hulse S. H. Perceptual classification based on the component structure of song in European starlings. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Jun;107(6):3369–3381. doi: 10.1121/1.429408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gentner TQ, Hulse SH. Perceptual mechanisms for individual vocal recognition in European starlings, Sturnus vulgaris. Anim Behav. 1998 Sep;56(3):579–594. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517–546. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Guilford T., Dawkins M. S. Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends Neurosci. 1993 Nov;16(11):430–436. doi: 10.1016/0166-2236(93)90068-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. HANSON H. M. Effects of discrimination training on stimulus generalization. J Exp Psychol. 1959 Nov;58:321–334. doi: 10.1037/h0042606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hasson O. Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1989 Jan 23;235(1281):383–406. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1989.0006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hausmann Franziska, Arnold Kathryn E., Marshall N. Justin, Owens Ian P. F. Ultraviolet signals in birds are special. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Jan 7;270(1510):61–67. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Healy I, I, Braithwaite I., I Cognitive ecology: a field of substance? Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Jan;15(1):22–26. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01737-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnstone R. A. Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature. 1994 Nov 10;372(6502):172–175. doi: 10.1038/372172a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnstone R. A., Grafen A. Error-prone signalling. Proc Biol Sci. 1992 Jun 22;248(1323):229–233. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1992.0066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. KALISH H. I., GUTTMAN N. Stimulus generalization after equal training on two stimuli. J Exp Psychol. 1957 Feb;53(2):139–144. doi: 10.1037/h0047916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. M A, Stamp dawkins M Predator discrimination error and the benefits of Müllerian mimicry. Anim Behav. 1998 May;55(5):1281–1288. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. MacDougall-Shackleton S. A., Hulse S. H., Gentner T. Q., White W. Auditory scene analysis by European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris): perceptual segregation of tone sequences. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998 Jun;103(6):3581–3587. doi: 10.1121/1.423063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Owens IP, Rowe C, Thomas AL. Sexual selection, speciation and imprinting: separating the sheep from the goats. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Apr;14(4):131–132. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01578-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  28. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  29. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  30. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  31. Partan S., Marler P. Communication goes multimodal. Science. 1999 Feb 26;283(5406):1272–1273. doi: 10.1126/science.283.5406.1272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Phillmore Leslie S., Sturdy Christopher B., Turyk Martha-Rae M., Weisman Ronald G. Discrimination of individual vocalizations by black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapilla). Anim Learn Behav. 2002 Feb;30(1):43–52. doi: 10.3758/bf03192908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Pryke Sarah R., Andersson Staffan. A generalized female bias for long tails in a short-tailed widowbird. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Oct 22;269(1505):2141–2146. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Riebel K. Early exposure leads to repeatable preferences for male song in female zebra finches. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Dec 22;267(1461):2553–2558. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Riebel K, Slater PJB. Testing female chaffinch song preferences by operant conditioning. Anim Behav. 1998 Dec;56(6):1443–1453. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rowe C. Receiver psychology and the evolution of multicomponent signals. Anim Behav. 1999 Nov;58(5):921–931. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rowe Candy, Lindström Leena, Lyytinen Anne. The importance of pattern similarity between Müllerian mimics in predator avoidance learning. Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Feb 22;271(1537):407–413. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rowe Candy. Sound improves visual discrimination learning in avian predators. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jul 7;269(1498):1353–1357. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ryan M. J., Fox J. H., Wilczynski W., Rand A. S. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature. 1990 Jan 4;343(6253):66–67. doi: 10.1038/343066a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ryan M. J. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science. 1998 Sep 25;281(5385):1999–2003. doi: 10.1126/science.281.5385.1999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Seyfarth R. M., Cheney D. L., Marler P. Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science. 1980 Nov 14;210(4471):801–803. doi: 10.1126/science.7433999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Shettleworth SJ. Female mate choice in swordtails and mollies: symmetry assessment or Weber's law? Anim Behav. 1999 Nov;58(5):1139–1142. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Speed MP. Robot predators in virtual ecologies: the importance of memory in mimicry studies. Anim Behav. 1999 Jan;57(1):203–213. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Speed MP. Warning signals, receiver psychology and predator memory. Anim Behav. 2000 Sep;60(3):269–278. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Weisman R., Njegovan M., Sturdy C., Phillmore L., Coyle J., Mewhort D. Frequency-range discriminations: special and general abilities in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol. 1998 Sep;112(3):244–258. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Zahavi A. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):603–605. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(77)90061-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES