<p>Anthropogenic changes can interfere with detection and interpretation of environmental cues, such as those related to foraging or predation. Well-documented risk cues in aquatic organisms are chemical alarm cues – compounds released upon physical damage. As an accurate indicator of predation risk, they trigger overt antipredator responses in conspecifics. However, damaged conspecific cues are known to become foraging cues in specific contexts, as might occur in cannibals. Therefore, the type of behavioural responses displayed to potentially conflicting cues is likely dependent on previous life-history experience, environment, and current intrinsic properties, like diet. To examine this conflict, crayfish, a known cannibalistic species, were fed conspecific carcasses or fish meat when alarm cues were present or absent, 10x over 22 days. Latency to forage was recorded during the first and last feeding. Individuals exposed to alarm cues with food were initially slow to feed but foraged quicker over time, regardless of diet. After the last feeding, we tested the crayfish’s interpretation of alarm cues (vs. a water control) in the absence of food provisioning. While most crayfish displayed fear responses towards alarm cues, those fed conspecifics in the absence of alarm cues responded to alarm cues with a foraging response. Crayfish did not ignore these alarm cues after repeated exposures. Instead, crayfish may generalize carcass cues to alarm cues; simultaneous detection of both cues may be required for individuals to differentiate the two and maintain proper responses to each. This study provides insight into factors that modulate individuals’ responses to important risk indicators.</p>