Wolf-like or dog-like? A comparison of gazing behaviour across three dog breeds tested in their familiar environments (original) (raw)
Related papers
Dog Breed Differences in Visual Communication with Humans
PLOS ONE, 2016
Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) have developed a close relationship with humans through the process of domestication. In human-dog interactions, eye contact is a key element of relationship initiation and maintenance. Previous studies have suggested that canine ability to produce human-directed communicative signals is influenced by domestication history, from wolves to dogs, as well as by recent breed selection for particular working purposes. To test the genetic basis for such abilities in purebred dogs, we examined gazing behavior towards humans using two types of behavioral experiments: the 'visual contact task' and the 'unsolvable task'. A total of 125 dogs participated in the study. Based on the genetic relatedness among breeds subjects were classified into five breed groups: Ancient, Herding, Hunting, Retriever-Mastiff and Working). We found that it took longer time for Ancient breeds to make an eye-contact with humans, and that they gazed at humans for shorter periods of time than any other breed group in the unsolvable situation. Our findings suggest that spontaneous gaze behavior towards humans is associated with genetic similarity to wolves rather than with recent selective pressure to create particular working breeds.
Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues
Animal Behaviour, 2008
Domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, have been shown capable of finding hidden food by following pointing gestures made with different parts of the human body. However, previous studies have reported that hand-reared wolves, C. lupus, fail to locate hidden food in response to similar points in the absence of extensive training. The failure of wolves to perform this task has led to the proposal that the ability to understand others' intentions is a derived character in dogs, not present in the ancestral population (wolves). Here we show that wolves, given the right rearing environment and daily interaction with humans, can use momentary distal human pointing cues to find food without training, whereas dogs tested outdoors and dogs at an animal shelter do not follow the same human points. In line with past studies, pet dogs tested indoors were successful in following these points. We also show that the reported failure of wolves in some past studies may be due to differences in the testing environment. Our findings indicate that domestication is not a prerequisite for human-like social cognition in canids, and show the need for additional research on the role of rearing conditions and environmental factors in the development of higher-level cognitive abilities.
Gazing behavior during problem solving tasks in domestic dogs. A critical review
2018
In the last few years, several studies have assessed dogs’ behavior when confronted with solvable or unsolvable tasks in the presence of human partners. In these situations, dogs tend to gaze towards people, which has been regarded as a help requesting behavior. This ability to attract the attention of a partner towards a target object is consistent with referential signaling and would have a similar function than pointing in human infants. The aim of this work is to review dogs’ communicative behaviors during unsolvable or solvable but difficult tasks, particularly gazing at the human face. To be included in this review, a study had to feature a problem solving task and analyze gazing behavior towards people in the experimental situation. The relevant topics of discussion were grouped into three conceptual areas. The first one focuses on methodological aspects such as the procedures and apparatuses used, the people present during the test, and the behaviors analyzed. The second one...
Animal Cognition, 2011
It is widely known that gaze plays an essential role in communicative interactions. Domestic dogs tend to look at the human face in situations of conflict and uncertainty. This study compares the gaze of shelter and pet dogs during acquisition and extinction phases in a situation involving a reward in sight but out of reach. Even though no significant differences between the groups were recorded during acquisition, gaze duration decreased in both groups during extinction, with shelter dogs showing a significant shorter duration. This could be related to their different living conditions and to the fact that through their ordinary everyday interactions, pet dogs have more opportunities to learn to persist in their communicative responses when they do not get what they want. These results highlight the relevance of learning experiences during ontogeny, which would therefore modulate communicative responses.
Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2003
Twelve domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were given a series of trials in which they were forbidden to take a piece of visible food. In some trials, the human continued to look at the dog throughout the trial (control condition), whereas in others, the human (a) left the room, (b) turned her back, (c) engaged in a distracting activity, or (d) closed her eyes. Dogs behaved in clearly different ways in most of the conditions in which the human did not watch them compared with the control condition, in which she did. In particular, when the human looked at them, dogs retrieved less food, approached it in a more indirect way, and sat (as opposed to laid down) more often than in the other conditions. Results are discussed in terms of domestic dogs' social-cognitive skills and their unique evolutionary and ontogenetic histories.
A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do
Current Biology, 2003
Study 1, we investigated how four socialized wolves perform in a two-way object choice task when the cor-Eö tvö s University Budapest rect place of the hidden food is indicated by gestures of the experimenter standing between the two contain-Pá zmá ny P. 1c, 1117 Hungary ers that are 1.5 m apart. Here, we report performance obtained for three different gestural cues: distal pointing (the index finger of the human is approximately 50 cm away from the object), proximal pointing (the index finger Summary of the human is approximately 5-10 cm away from the object), and touching (the human touches the object The present investigations were undertaken to comphysically). The data of the first and last 20 trials are pare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and analyzed (also see the Experimental Procedures). At the wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparaend of the test series, 20 control trials were staged ble levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized without the use of any gestures. The overall results are wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food presented in Figure 1; however, the performance of each indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing wolf has been analyzed individually. The statistical analcues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but ysis with a binomial test showed that the performance their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. was at chance with "distal pointing" gestures at the In the second study, we have found that, after undergobeginning of the tests (p Ͼ 0.12 for all), but one wolf ing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs increased his performance significantly by the end of that are faced with an insoluble version of the same the experiment (p Ͻ 0.01) and was correct in 80% of problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized the trials. (He achieved this level of performance after wolves do not. Based on these observations, we sugthe fifth block of trials). Further, in the case of "touching," gest that the key difference between dog and wolf all individuals performed well over chance (p Ͻ 0.01 for behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's all). Two individuals preferred to choose the container face. Since looking behavior has an important function indicated by the "proximal pointing" gesture (p Ͻ 0.01 in initializing and maintaining communicative interacfor both). In sum, our socialized wolves performed over tion in human communication systems, we suppose chance in at least one condition; one wolf performed that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary over chance with all gestures, and another one perand ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at formed over chance in two conditions. Overall, it seems the human face has lead to complex forms of dogthat when they experience appropriate rearing condihuman communication that cannot be achieved in tions, wolves can learn about human cuing, and this wolves even after extended socialization. behavior is in contrast to the performance of "semisocialized" wolves [8]. Results and Discussion Although these results indicate that given "dog-like" upbringing young wolves can learn about some human Recent results have shown that dogs' (Canis familiaris) gestures that indicate the place of food, their perforperformance at some communicative task is surprisingly mance is generally worse than that of the dogs' in a good in comparison to, for example, chimpanzees (Pan similar testing situation and there was a large individual troglodytes) [1-4]. Dogs could use different or unusual variability. However, this finding in itself does not explain forms of the human directional gestures (i.e., pointing) why wolves perform differently in some of the cuing to find hidden food indicated by a human [5], and they conditions. In order to be correct in the case of the could also inform humans about locations of hidden "touching" and "proximal pointing" gestures, subjects food by gazing at it and showing gaze alternation beneeded to look only at the vicinity of the container and tween the target location and the human subject [6]. We to be sensitive to the moving hand. Correct performance assume that the genetic divergence of the dog from in these situations can be explained by simple associaits ancestor was accompanied by important behavioral tive learning that was attenuated by previous experience changes that could have a genetic basis because of a with humans; that is, wolves had many opportunities to selection pressure for dogs that were able to adapt learn that the human hand is often associated (e.g., at better to the human social setting [7]. One way to investifeeding occasions) with the presence of food. To be able gate genetic effects on dog behavior is to compare dogs' to utilize the "distal pointing" gesture, subjects need to behavior with that of the nearest living relative, the wolf look not only at the containers but also at the human (Canis lupus). Unfortunately, a recent comparative ininformant's upper body. Therefore, if wolves avoid lookvestigation [8] showing dog-wolf differences did not ing at humans (or they look only for a very short duration), they are not able to perceive the directionality of the gesture, and, as a result, the task is by design insolvable
Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs
Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2009
Background: It has been suggested that the functional similarities in the socio-cognitive behaviour of dogs and humans emerged as a consequence of comparable environmental selection pressures. Here we use a novel approach to account for the facilitating effect of domestication in dogs and reveal that selection for two factors under genetic influence (visual cooperation and focused attention) may have led independently to increased comprehension of human communicational cues. Method: In Study 1, we observed the performance of three groups of dogs in utilizing the human pointing gesture in a two-way object choice test. We compared breeds selected to work while visually separated from human partners (N = 30, 21 breeds, clustered as independent worker group), with those selected to work in close cooperation and continuous visual contact with human partners (N = 30, 22 breeds, clustered as cooperative worker group), and with a group of mongrels (N = 30). Secondly, it has been reported that, in dogs, selective breeding to produce an abnormal shortening of the skull is associated with a more pronounced area centralis (location of greatest visual acuity). In Study 2, breeds with high cephalic index and more frontally placed eyes (brachycephalic breeds, N = 25, 14 breeds) were compared with breeds with low cephalic index and laterally placed eyes (dolichocephalic breeds, N = 25, 14 breeds). Results: In Study 1, cooperative workers were significantly more successful in utilizing the human pointing gesture than both the independent workers and the mongrels. In study 2, we found that brachycephalic dogs performed significantly better than dolichocephalic breeds. Discussion: After controlling for environmental factors, we have provided evidence that at least two independent phenotypic traits with certain genetic variability affect the ability of dogs to rely on human visual cues. This finding should caution researchers against making simple generalizations about the effects of domestication and on dog-wolf differences in the utilization of human visual signals.