July 10, 2015

July 10, 2015

Written by Maximus Peperkamp, M.S. Verbal Engineer

Dear Reader, 

This is my third response to the findings of Owren and Rendall published in “An affect conditioning model of nonhuman primate vocal signaling” (1997).  The “conative” function or natural tendency of primate vocal signaling is primarily affective, because senders either induce positive or negative affective experiences in receivers. Cognitive outcomes of signaling are secondary to as they are facilitated by affective experiences that any given vocalization induces. Only “calls which are primarily conative”, which result in a positive affective experience the receivers, could become “cognitive” in function. Those signals which resulted in negative affective experiences in the receivers led to an aversive kind of learning which, rather than stimulating verbal behavior, stimulated nonverbal behavior.   

In humans, Noxious Verbal Behavior (NVB) is always a function of negative affective experiences, such as a threat. The vocalizations produced by the sender in NVB will make the receiver flee, fight or freeze. Such NVB vocalizations are not conducive to activation of cognitive systems as they directly activate and dysregulate subcortical systems which trigger avoidance and escape behavior instead of exploratory approach behavior. 

Only a sender’s Sound Verbal Behavior (SVB) has a directly regulating and stabilizing effect on these subcortical systems.  Only if circumstances are such that “the influences that the senders are able to assert” are “beneficial to the receiver” will the cognitive systems of the receiver be properly activated as a function of his or her positive affective experiences. If on the other hand, the circumstances are such that the sender’s vocalizations are “costly to the receiver” or “detrimental to” his or her “overall fitness, natural selection will favor adaptations that decrease those costs.” 

To answer a question from a dominant NVB sender, it is adaptive for the subordinate receiver to produce SVB. Thus, SVB is a function of warding off the NVB sender and out of our increased ability to become better at this and to be safe, our cognitive abilities are believed to have emerged. The less we were bothered by threats and the more we prolonged our positive affective states became, the more our cognitive abilities could flourish.

“A number of relevant principles have been identified in this regard, including constraints imposed by the transmission of the environment in which calls are used (e.g. Brown, Gomez & Waser, 1995) possible relationships among acoustic gradedness, and the degree to which signals in other modalities compliment the acoustic event (e.g. Green & Marler, 1997; Marler, 1975) and a general relationship between the acoustic of calls and sender state (Morton, 1977, 1982).  All of these effects are explained by the Affect Conditioning Model (ACM), but they are even better explained by the SVB/NVB distinction, which clarifies the relationship between form and function, that is, “the bewildering variety of acoustic form and repertoire design among primates” and human beings. 

To the extent that we understand our own Pavlovian anticipatory affective reactions “in response to upcoming events” we will be able to acknowledge that “affective responses play a central role in such learning.” As long as we don’t realize that NVB continues to make us talk and write only in a NVB manner, we are unable to comprehend that another way of conditioning, with SVB, would have led to totally different and more positive results.   

The crucial role played by “acoustic cues to individual identity in vocal communication processes” is well-established and “evidence of either discrimination or explicit recognition of individuals is available from several species” (e.g. Snowdon, 1986; Rendall, Rodman, Emond, 1996). 

Although there is significant evidence that “Adult primates, particularly females, make use of individually distinctive acoustic cues in calls in coming to the aid of related individuals or unrelated allies involved in agonistic social encounters” and primate behavior is generally shaped by “kinship relationship and interaction histories (see Smuths, Cheney, Seyfarth, Wrangham, & Struhsaker, 1987; Cheney & Seyfarth, 1990), nobody is paying attention to the primate in the room: humans influence each other with their sound. These researchers are trying to get the proposal accepted that “primates produce affective vocalizations in conspecifics receivers, thereby influencing the subsequent behavior of those animals,” but they will only succeed if we know about the SVB/NVB distinction.