Why did the behaviour of crying out in response to pain evolve?

[Fanghur]

There's something that I have always wondered, and which has never made sense to me. Evolution is supposed to be based on adaptations and behaviours that are beneficial to the species. I know that this is a HUGE oversimplification to an extremely complicated subject, but since I don't have time to rewrite Darwin's original manuscript on here, just bear with me.

 

Why us it that almost all higher organisms tend to make a lot of noise when they get injured, wounded or hurt? For example, human beings tend to, depending on their age, either yell loudly or start crying. Canines tend to whimper and/or yelp. Birds will chirp loudly and thrash on the ground. The list goes on. But it has never made sense to me for this behaviour to have evolved, because at first glance it seems completely unbeneficial to the organism, and indeed, in the wild it puts them in tremendous danger by attracting predators to them like a beacon attracts ships to it.

 

Obviously the sensation of pain is a necessary adaptation, despite how much we all wish to be rid of it at at least some point in our lives. But the response of crying out, crying, wailing, whimpering, etc. appears to be a reflexive behaviour that occurs in response to pain, and every biologist knows that predators always attack prey which they deem to be sick or injured before attacking healthy prey. Due to this, it has never made any sense to me that we would have evolved a behaviour that seemingly has no benefit, and which endangers our lives. Does anyone have any thoughts?

[imatfaal]

Is it because most of the higher animals are social animals? Our cry of pain has two obvious results - it warns our fellow group members that there is a hazard, and it draws them into closer proximity from where they can aid against predators or against the initial hazard

[Phi for All]

I agree with imatfaal above, and would also add that there might be evolutionary advantage to crying out in that it could trigger either a flight or freeze response in any young nearby, thus allowing them to survive while focusing attention on the parent.

[Bauke]

Couldn't it also be a trigger for the parent to tend to the crying infant? Much in the same way as a baby's cry is a cue for a mother to start lactating.

[Phi for All]

Couldn't it also be a trigger for the parent to tend to the crying infant? Much in the same way as a baby's cry is a cue for a mother to start lactating.

I think this was adequately covered by imatfaal's post. One of their young crying out after an attack is both a warning and a call for aid.

[Appolinaria]

Birds don't die because they squawk when attacked. They die perhaps because they have faulty ears and can't hear a predator behind them.

 

I personally don't believe there is much merit to the argument that squawking attracts more predators and therefore, death, as opposed to survival. Let's say a bird does not have the reflex to make a sound, and is able to escape from his single enemy, I'd say it is very likely that;

 

A. He will die shortly after from his wounds.

 

B. His wounds will heal but I.E., make him limp, and an easy target to predators.

 

C. He will heal, with some damage, and be unable to find a mate for his I.E. lack of feathers and sickly appearance. So his genes will not be spread anyway.

 

D. His response of not making a noise when attacked, may also carry into a lack of overall communication when alerting other birds of a predator in the vicinity. He may be excluded from the flock, or die from lack of awareness. This actually may be a disadvantageous trait in the big picture.

 

I think the squawking is completely irrelevant to natural selection, but rather, what got the bird attacked in the first place is what's key. Therefore, it is important to remember that we have vestigial organs. If a trait is not particularly disadvantageous, it may take evolution an extremely long time to weed it out.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Appolinaria

[Dekan]

Is it because most of the higher animals are social animals? Our cry of pain has two obvious results - it warns our fellow group members that there is a hazard, and it draws them into closer proximity from where they can aid against predators or against the initial hazard

 

Yes, but doesn't that imply unrealistic group altruism? More likely, the pain cry is based on self-interest. It evolved to startle and inhibit an attacker. I'm thinking here in human terms - suppose you got someone really mad at you, and they started hitting you. And you didn't make any kind of vocal response - just submitted silently to their blows. They might carry on punching you until they'd worked off all their rage, and seriously injured, or even killed you.

 

But what if, when they land their first blow, you scream out loudly - in an agonised shriek full of pain and distress. Won't that tend to make them realise what they're doing, and curtail their assault?

 

So the pain cry in human society may be an individual defensive response to perceived danger. The response would naturally be employed most often by the most vulnerable members of our society, such as females. And in support of that, don't we see that in situations of danger - it's always the women who start screaming first?

[zapatos]

I would think the scream is related to everything else you are doing. If you are attacked you want to get away and will use all means at your disposal. You will kick, hit, run, spit, and yell. Some things work better than others but screaming works pretty well. Battle cries add a distinct advantage, whether on offense or defense. Next time someone is bothering you, scream at them at the top of your lungs and see whether or not it gives you an advantage.

[ewmon]

Is it because most of the higher animals are social animals? Our cry of pain has two obvious results - it warns our fellow group members that there is a hazard, and it draws them into closer proximity from where they can aid against predators or against the initial hazard

I think the squawking is completely irrelevant to natural selection, but rather, what got the bird attacked in the first place is what's key.

Chickadees have a sophisticated alarm system. They emit a high-pitched "seet" for dangerous predators flying nearby, and birds hearing this signal (not just other chickadees, but also other species such as titmice and nuthatches) recognize this signal and hunker down until the "all's well" signal is given.

 

A more sophisticated signal is their seemingly casual "chick-a-dee-dee" trademark call. Part of the information in it that we can recognize is the number of "dee" notes that designate the level of danger of flying predators that are perching or ground-based predators, such as weasels and house cats. One or two "dee" notes means all's well; more than that means danger. Other birds (nuthatches and titmice as well as other chickadees) will recognize the warning, fly toward the caller, and help to mob the predator and drive it away.

 

Note the chart on this webpage. Chickadees literally size-up their predators, and know that they can probably out-maneuver the big ones, such as the great horned owl, and have more concern for the smaller ones, such as the northern pygmy owl, that can press home the pursuit of small birds. During the research on this, one apparently terrified chickadee's alarm call contained 23 dee notes when caged with a tethered northwern pygmy owl. On the other hand, the rough-legged hawk elicits an average of only 1¼ dee notes (lower than the "all's well call). Apparently the chickadee knows (or learns) that this hawk feeds exclusively on small mammals and other land animals, and not small songbirds.

 

Notice also in the chart that chickadees distinguish between predators and non-predators, such as a bobwhite, which although small, is not a predator and elicits the average "all's well" signal of 1½ dee notes.

Edited July 10, 2012 by ewmon