responses (Gyger et al. 1986, 1987; Karakashian et al. 1988; Marler et al.
1991, 1992). As Marler and his colleagues have documented over the past
ten years, whether a chicken produces a food or alarm call depends on who
is around—its audience (Marler et al. 1986a, 1986b, 1991; Karakashian et
al. 1988; Evans and Marler 1995).
When cockerels were presented with food (e.g., mealworms), they
announced their discovery 100% of the time in the presence of a familiar
female, 95% of the time in the presence of an unfamiliar female, 75% of
the time when alone, and never called in the presence of another cockerel.
Thus, the presence of a hen potentiated food calling, whereas the presence
of a cockerel apparently suppressed food calling. The pattern of calling and
suppression is, however, slightly different when cockerels are presented
with a nonfood item such as a peanut shell. When peanut shells were
present, cockerels produced food calls about 50% of the time in the presence of a strange female but only about 20% of the time in the presence of
familiar females. Cockerels almost never called when they were alone or in
the presence of another male.
The food-calling system of the chicken provides evidence for the definitional conditions set out above. Several studies have shown that when chickens find food, they give a characteristic call that functionally refers to food;
the rate at which chickens give food calls appears to reflect the individual’s
preference for the particular food type. Given the fact that the signal functionally refers to food, we must then ask why chickens sometimes suppress
their calls, committing a lie of omission. The results obtained by Marler and
his colleagues suggest that chickens assess the costs and benefits of withholding information by attending to the composition of the audience. When
another male is present, cockerels are silent because calling would increase
the costs of food competition while bringing no benefits. In contrast, when
females are present, calling to food increases the costs of food competition
but returns the benefits associated with sexual access or opportunity. Importantly, however, cockerels fail to call to nonfood items if a familiar female
is nearby but often call if an unfamiliar female is present. Marler and colleagues offer the intriguing speculation that this pattern results from the
fact that cockerels can tolerate the potential costs of a lie of commission—
giving a food call to a nonfood item—when the female is unfamiliar but
cannot afford such costs when the female is familiar.
The data that Marler and his colleagues have collected clearly show that
chickens are sensitive to the contexts in which a lie of omission pays. At
present, we have no understanding of the costs associated with being caught
committing a lie of omission. For example, do dominant cockerels attack
subordinate cockerels who have withheld information about the presence
of food? Do unfamiliar females reject the mating advances of cockerels who
have withheld information about food? In addition to addressing these
questions, studies of the chicken food-call system might also profitably
explore additional manipulations of the audience, food, and the signaler’s
3. Unpacking “Honesty”
119
1991, 1992). As Marler and his colleagues have documented over the past
ten years, whether a chicken produces a food or alarm call depends on who
is around—its audience (Marler et al. 1986a, 1986b, 1991; Karakashian et
al. 1988; Evans and Marler 1995).
When cockerels were presented with food (e.g., mealworms), they
announced their discovery 100% of the time in the presence of a familiar
female, 95% of the time in the presence of an unfamiliar female, 75% of
the time when alone, and never called in the presence of another cockerel.
Thus, the presence of a hen potentiated food calling, whereas the presence
of a cockerel apparently suppressed food calling. The pattern of calling and
suppression is, however, slightly different when cockerels are presented
with a nonfood item such as a peanut shell. When peanut shells were
present, cockerels produced food calls about 50% of the time in the presence of a strange female but only about 20% of the time in the presence of
familiar females. Cockerels almost never called when they were alone or in
the presence of another male.
The food-calling system of the chicken provides evidence for the definitional conditions set out above. Several studies have shown that when chickens find food, they give a characteristic call that functionally refers to food;
the rate at which chickens give food calls appears to reflect the individual’s
preference for the particular food type. Given the fact that the signal functionally refers to food, we must then ask why chickens sometimes suppress
their calls, committing a lie of omission. The results obtained by Marler and
his colleagues suggest that chickens assess the costs and benefits of withholding information by attending to the composition of the audience. When
another male is present, cockerels are silent because calling would increase
the costs of food competition while bringing no benefits. In contrast, when
females are present, calling to food increases the costs of food competition
but returns the benefits associated with sexual access or opportunity. Importantly, however, cockerels fail to call to nonfood items if a familiar female
is nearby but often call if an unfamiliar female is present. Marler and colleagues offer the intriguing speculation that this pattern results from the
fact that cockerels can tolerate the potential costs of a lie of commission—
giving a food call to a nonfood item—when the female is unfamiliar but
cannot afford such costs when the female is familiar.
The data that Marler and his colleagues have collected clearly show that
chickens are sensitive to the contexts in which a lie of omission pays. At
present, we have no understanding of the costs associated with being caught
committing a lie of omission. For example, do dominant cockerels attack
subordinate cockerels who have withheld information about the presence
of food? Do unfamiliar females reject the mating advances of cockerels who
have withheld information about food? In addition to addressing these
questions, studies of the chicken food-call system might also profitably
explore additional manipulations of the audience, food, and the signaler’s
3. Unpacking “Honesty”
119