‘Cheating’ birds change their tune 18%

By Clarissa Brincat17%

8/3/2026, 6:00:00 AM

Topics: Animals
Keywords: Bird, Song

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Confirmation Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 388 faulty-reasoning hits from 370 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.7% and a BS Rank of 18% (25,264 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.60% of the article peer group.

Once its first mate lays eggs, a male pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleA male pied flycatcher (Ficedula hypoleuca) will often set up another nest several hundred meters away and court passing females. 
The stakes are high for the females, as a male splitting its time between two nests provides less help raising chicks. 
Ethologist Helene Lampe and her colleagues recorded 17 wild males twice  once while a male was a bachelor, and again after it had mated and moved to a second territory to woo another female. 
Using bioacoustics software, the team found that two things changed. 
The songs got shorter  from about two seconds to about 1.7  and the male repeated itself less. 
“Usually, a male will cycle through his song syllables in an orderly manner  one or two syllables are usually repeated from one song to the next,” says Lampe, of the University of Oslo. 
“But when they become polyterritorial, they do it much less often.” 
The decreased syllable repetition may be geared toward rival males  a kind of “territorial ‘Keep Out’ signal,” Nowicki says. 
This fits the results of an earlier study where males tended to repeat syllables less near a rival male, but not near a female. 
Shorter songs, on the other hand, may be a tactic the male uses to elude its first mate. 
Previous research has shown that the first female can recognize its partner’s song and will fly over to chase off other females, so shorter songs may lower the male’s chances of being caught “cheating,” the researchers speculate. 
To test whether females can hear the difference, the team played recorded songs from both single and mated males in large outdoor aviaries. 
Most females (21 out of 29) made more visits to the nest box beside the speaker playing a bachelor's song. 
But that preference disappeared when researchers doctored the bachelors' songs to resemble that of a mated male. 
Nowicki would like to put in a word for the males, though. 
Calling them “cheaters” risks making them sound like tiny Machiavellians, he says, when they’re not actually setting out to deceive the females. 
“It’s just selection acting on them to increase their reproductive success.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.3%Clarissa Brincat: 1.5%Science News: 2.5%Confirmation Bias10.3%This article: 5.1%Clarissa Brincat: 0.8%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias5.1%This article: 5.4%Clarissa Brincat: 2.9%Science News: 2.0%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.8%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.7%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.9%Science News: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Clarissa Brincat: 3.0%Science News: 3.2%Framing Effect7.3%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.4%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 3.2%Science News: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.8%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 1.5%Science News: 3.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.3%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.6%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.5%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.2%Clarissa Brincat: 2.7%Science News: 3.4%Appeal to Authority9.2%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.6%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Clarissa Brincat: 2.7%Science News: 3.6%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.4%Clarissa Brincat: 1.1%Science News: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion1.4%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.9%Clarissa Brincat: 3.0%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.9%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.7%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.4%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.4%Clarissa Brincat: 1.5%Science News: 1.0%Anecdotal5.4%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 2.2%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.3%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.2%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.1%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.4%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.3%Clarissa Brincat: 1.0%Science News: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice17.3%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 1.6%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clarissa Brincat: 0.4%Science News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

370 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers30%attributed speech260writer words
Selected voice

Nowicki

82%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words59% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice+17.7 ptsWriter: 16.2%Nowicki: 33.8%33.8%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.