The role of sensory ecology and cognition in social decisions: Costs of acquiring information matter

Abstract

We generally assume that animals should maximize information acquisition about their environment to make prudent decisions. But this is a naïve assumption, as gaining information typically involves costs. This is especially so in the social context, where interests between interacting partners usually diverge. The arms race involved in mutual assessment is characterized by the attempt to obtain revealing information from a partner while providing only as much information by oneself as is conducive to one's own intentions. If obtaining information occasions costs in terms of time, energy and risk, animals should be selected to base their decisions on a cost–benefit ratio that takes account of the trade‐off between the risk of making wrong choices and the costs involved in information acquisition, processing and use. In addition, there may be physiological and/or environmental constraints limiting the ability to obtaining, processing and utilizing reliable information. Here, we discuss recent empirical evidence for the proposition that social decisions are to an important extent based on the costs that result from acquiring, processing, evaluating and storing information. Using examples from different taxa and ecological contexts, we aim at drawing attention to the often neglected costs of information recipience, with emphasis on the potential role of sensory ecology and cognition in social decisions.

Combined cues of male competition influence spermatozoal investment in a moth

“…The findings from the moth and flies hitherto suggest that the type and number of cues required for male insects to detect and respond to their rivals may have evolved in response to ecological and physiological differences between species across orders. Because acquisition and processing of information from the surroundings often involve costs in energy and time, animals should be selected to make their decisions based on the trade‐off between the costs and the risk of making wrong decisions (Schneeberger & Taborsky, 2020). Fruit fly adults often live in aggregation, continue to feed and have a long longevity (Partridge & Farquhar, 1981).…”

Fake news? The impact of information mismatch on mating behaviour

“…Whereas the use of multiple cues can be beneficial to receivers in many contexts, their use also comes at some costs. First, processing information stemming from multiple cues is expected to lead to increased energetic and cognitive investment (Schneeberger & Taborsky, 2020 ). Second, when there is information mismatch, using multiple cues may lead to an inaccurate response.…”

Rapid resource depletion on coral reefs disrupts competitor recognition processes among butterflyfish species

“…It is unclear to what extent recognition processes can keep pace with this shift. Furthermore, the cognitive load required to discriminate under novel conditions might be higher, which could reduce the sensory capacity available to monitor other threats [16]. Such suboptimal responses could lead to detrimental loss of energy through unnecessary aggression with knock-on effects for population dynamics, species coexistence and even speciation processes [2,17].…”