» Articles » PMID: 20679111

Social Eavesdropping and the Evolution of Conditional Cooperation and Cheating Strategies

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2010 Aug 4
PMID 20679111
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The response of bystanders to information available in their social environment can have a potent influence on the evolution of cooperation and signalling systems. In the presence of bystanders, individuals might be able to increase their payoff by exaggerating signals beyond their means (cheating) or investing to help others despite considerable costs. In doing so, animals can accrue immediate benefits by manipulating (or helping) individuals with whom they are currently interacting and delayed benefits by convincing bystanders that they are more fit or cooperative than perhaps is warranted. In this paper, I provide some illustrative examples of how bystanders could apply added positive selection pressure on both cooperative behaviour and dishonest signalling during courtship or conflict. I also discuss how the presence of bystanders might select for greater flexibility in behavioural strategies (e.g. conditional or condition dependence), which could maintain dishonesty at evolutionarily stable frequencies under some ecological conditions. By recognizing bystanders as a significant selection pressure, we might gain a more realistic approximation of what drives signalling and/or interaction dynamics in social animals.

Citing Articles

Submissive behaviour is affected by group size in a social fish.

Hirons-Major C, Ruberto T, Swaney W, Reddon A R Soc Open Sci. 2024; 11(5):240539.

PMID: 39076789 PMC: 11285878. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.240539.


The role of intrasexual competition on the evolution of male-male courtship display: a systematic review.

Orfao I, Carvalho C, Rodrigues I, Ascensao L, Pedaccini M, Vicente L PeerJ. 2023; 10:e14638.

PMID: 36751481 PMC: 9899439. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.14638.


Follow the leader? Orange-fronted conures eavesdrop on conspecific vocal performance and utilise it in social decisions.

Thomsen H, Balsby T, Dabelsteen T PLoS One. 2021; 16(6):e0252374.

PMID: 34106975 PMC: 8189466. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252374.


Concede or clash? Solitary sharks competing for food assess rivals to decide.

Brena P, Mourier J, Planes S, Clua E Proc Biol Sci. 2018; 285(1875).

PMID: 29593111 PMC: 5897642. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0006.


Social transmission of information about a mutualist via trophallaxis in ant colonies.

Hayashi M, Hojo M, Nomura M, Tsuji K Proc Biol Sci. 2017; 284(1861).

PMID: 28855369 PMC: 5577494. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1367.


References
1.
Milinski M . TIT FOR TAT in sticklebacks and the evolution of cooperation. Nature. 1987; 325(6103):433-5. DOI: 10.1038/325433a0. View

2.
Bshary R, Bergmuller R . Distinguishing four fundamental approaches to the evolution of helping. J Evol Biol. 2008; 21(2):405-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01482.x. View

3.
Steger R, Caldwell R . Intraspecific deception by bluffing: a defense strategy of newly molted stomatopods (arthropoda: crustacea). Science. 1983; 221(4610):558-60. DOI: 10.1126/science.221.4610.558. View

4.
Plath M, Richter S, Tiedemann R, Schlupp I . Male fish deceive competitors about mating preferences. Curr Biol. 2008; 18(15):1138-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.06.067. View

5.
Bshary R . Biting cleaner fish use altruism to deceive image-scoring client reef fish. Proc Biol Sci. 2002; 269(1505):2087-93. PMC: 1691138. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2084. View