Primate communication: Affective, intentional, or both?

Abstract

The intentional communication of affective states is a central part of human sociality and cognition. Although nonhuman primates (henceforth primates) also signal intentionally, there is a perceived chasm between their intentional versus affective forms of communication. Whereas primate vocalizations and facial expressions are traditionally viewed as involuntary 'read-outs' of affective states, gestures are considered as products of intentional control. However, this traditional view is increasingly contentious, given recent evidence of intentional signal production of primate vocalizations and facial expressions, as well as the general void of arousal-based explanations in gesture research. In this chapter, we challenge the perceived dichotomy between affective and intentional communication in primates and propose a dimensional approach, whereby primate signals can be both affective and intentional, regardless of signal modality (tactile, audible, visible) or component (gesture, facial expression, vocalization). We argue that a dimensional approach, which incorporates both affective and intentional components, would improve our knowledge on how affective and cognitive processes have jointly shaped the evolution of primate communication.

Tactical signalling by victims increases bystander consolation in bonobos

“…The copyright holder for this this version posted January 20, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.18.476740 doi: bioRxiv preprint 34 components that are by definition intentional: gestures and body signals [18,19]. Our study supports the emerging view that great ape communicative displays during higharousal contexts may concurrently be "intentional" and "emotional" [20]. This questions the purported dichotomy between emotional vocalisations or facial expressions on the one hand and intentional gestures or body signals on the other [1].…”

“…Traditionally, animal vocalisations and facial expressions have been perceived as emotional and involuntary [1], but recent research challenges this claim [20]: vocalisations can meet intentionality criteria if viewed in the framework used by gesture research [72] and vocalisations can actually be paired with other signal 34 components that are by definition intentional: gestures and body signals [18,19]. Our study supports the emerging view that great ape communicative displays during higharousal contexts may concurrently be "intentional" and "emotional" [20]. This questions the purported dichotomy between emotional vocalisations or facial expressions on the one hand and intentional gestures or body signals on the other [1].…”

“…There was notable variation in the ways victims expressed their distress, as shown by the range of signal components used (vocalisations, facial expressions, gestures, body signals) and the communication style deployed (aggressive, paedomorphic, affiliativesubmissive). Traditionally, animal vocalisations and facial expressions have been perceived as emotional and involuntary [1], but recent research challenges this claim [20]: vocalisations can meet intentionality criteria if viewed in the framework used by gesture research [72] and vocalisations can actually be paired with other signal preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved.…”

“…Until recently, the notion of even studying emotions, and related constructs such as empathy, in animals has been somewhat taboo, and whether or not animals can control their emotion expressions remains controversial [20,21]. Traditionally, animal communication has been viewed as "emotional-by-default", with emotional denoting uncontrollable, involuntary, arousal-based and overall, scientifically inaccessible.…”

“…The copyright holder for this this version posted January 20, 2022. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01. 18.476740 doi: bioRxiv preprint With a call to the apparent rise of an era of 'affectivism' in human sciences, from the long-standing influence of behaviourism and cognitivism [24], scholars are increasingly criticizing the dichotomous view of emotion versus cognitive communication, including in animals [1,20]. This includes stating that i) emotion communication may be both affective and cognitive simultaneously, and that ii) animals, notably nonhuman primates, can flexibly adjust their signals, even when these signals are emitted in emotional settings [1].…”