1. #1 Song (Type) Matching
Counter singing
Marsh Wrens
Track 38 (Kroodsma)

2. Repertoire Matching Beecher’s Studies on the song sparrow Bird 3 W V UX
Bird 1 O P B I C A E F D T N H J S L K R Q G
Bird 4

3. (2) Match with another shared song Repertoire Matching
(1) Match song exactly
Type Matching
(2) Match with another shared
song Repertoire Matching
(3) Sing a unshared song

4. Neighbors tend to repertoire match more than expected by chance
Neighbors type-match early and
repertoire match later in the season
Song functions to communicate to territory ownership in very sophisticated ways
Type
Match
Repertoire
Match
Unshared

5. Receiver (‘intended’) (sender) (recipient)
SOCIAL EAVESDROPPER
Eavesdropper
INFO
Signaler
Receiver (‘intended’)
(sender)
(recipient)

6. (C)
SOCIAL EAVESDROPPER
INFO
(A)
(B)
INFO
Signaler
Receiver (‘intended’)
(sender)
(recipient)

7. Overlapper = aggressive
Non-overlapping
Low aggression
Overlapper = aggressive
Overlapping
High aggression
Overlapped = passive

8. ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ exposed to aggressive male playback kept its distance;
McGregor et al. 1997
aggressive
passive ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂
Focal males whose response we want to quantify
♂ exposed to aggressive male playback kept its distance;
♂ exposed to passive male playback approached quickly

9. Peake et al. 2001 ♂
Varied intruder’s aggressiveness by the amount of song overlap producing:
Overlappers
Alternators
Random (inconsistent)
Overlapped
Only when exposed to the Overlapped
did the focal male reduce its song output
2-fold

10. ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ ♂ EPCs in 2 of 20 aggressive owner’s nests
Otter et al. 1999
EPCs in 2 of 20 aggressive owner’s nests
i.e., low cuckolding
In Otter et al’s work on
tits there was no
reproductive effect,
But on Mennill et al’s
work on red-winged
blackbirds there was ♂ ♀ ♂
Aggressive
owner ♀ ♂ ♂
Passive
owner
EPCs in 12 of 23 passive owner’s nests
i.e., high cuckolding

11. Clearly Social Eavesdropping
occurs by both sexes
(C)
SOCIAL EAVESDROPPER
INFO
(A)
(B)
INFO
Signaler
Receiver (‘intended’)
(sender)
(recipient)

12. Eavesdropping on decisions of others
Do conspecific choices reveal information??
Mate copying & the evolution of culture

13. The Choice Test Paradigm
Male 2
Male 1
Model
female
Observer female 1 2

14. The Choice Test Paradigm
Male 2
Male 1
Observer female 2 ?

15. ? Results of Copying Experiment Time near as a proxy for mate choice
Male 1
Male 2 ? 2
In 85% of trials, females preferred males that were near model female (G = 10.8, P < 0.005)
Model female was near this male

16. Control (viewed from above)
Male 2
Male 1
Focal
female
Female
Female

17. Results of Control Male with visible model Male Focal female
In 85% of trials, females preferred males that were near the visible model female (G = 10.8, P < 0.005)

18. Results (No Model Present)
In 85% of trials, females preferred more colorful male (G = 10.6, P < 0.005)

19. Model Near Less Colorful Male
Males Differ by 12% -
Model Near Less Colorful Male 2 1

20. Results: Males Differ by 12% - Model Near Less Colorful Male
In 85% of trials females prefer less colorful male. A complete reversal.

21. Proportion choosing more orange male
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8 1
Proportion choosing more orange male
0.04 (I)
0.12 (II)
0.24 (III)
0.40 (IV)
Mean difference in orange body color
Control
Treatment
Mate-copying overrides
differences in male’s cues
Treatment and control are significantly different for I, II and III, but not IV

22. From date copying in guppies to date
copying in humans?

23. Survey (for females)
Chris was interviewed independently by five women. Each interview
lasted 20 minutes and the interviewer was allowed to ask anything
she wanted. The five women then rated Chris on several
characteristics. These ratings were made using 10-point scales, where
the higher the number, the more positive the rating.
In terms of physical attractiveness, Chris’ average rating was 3 out of 10
(where 1 = extremely unattractive and 10 = extremely attractive)....
In addition, the five women were asked to indicate how interested
they would be in dating Chris. 4 of the 5 women indicated an
interest in dating Chris.

24. Questionnaire 1. How interested would you be in dating Chris?
Not at all Very
2. How good do you think Chris’ social skills are?
Not good at all Very good
3. How good do you think Chris’ sense of humor is?
4. How wealthy do you think Chris is?
Not wealthy at all Very wealthy
2- 4 allow us to
study attributes
associated with
copying

25. Results Physical attraction targets eliciting a greater response
than low physical attraction targets (P < for both sexes).
BUT effect of peer attention highly significant (p < )
& Females were more affected by differential peer attention than were
males (p < 0.01).

26. Results - Attributes
Both males and females thought high peer attention individuals had
better social skills (p <0.01)
better sense of humor (p < 0.01)
More wealth (p<0.01)
There was, however, a significant peer attention x
gender interaction, with females perceiving greater
differences in male wealth as a function of peer
attention.

27. Summary Both males and females are affected by physical attraction.
Both males and females engage in “date copying”.
Females weigh the decisions of others more strongly than males.
Both sexes attribute social skills, a sense of humor and wealth to
those individuals preferred by others.
Females associate peer attention and wealth more strongly than
males.

28. Eavesdropping (visually or vocally) within a population
(i.e., network of individuals) can alter behavior in ways not predicted by focusing an the interactions between two individuals…..to be continued