Comparing wolves and dogs: current status and implications for human ‘self-domestication’

Range, Friederike; Marshall-Pescini, Sarah

doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.003

Cited by 57 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 114 publications

(187 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While dogs and cats did not differ in their ability to follow human pointing cues, cats lacked some components of attentiongetting behaviour compared with dogs. However, recent studies directly comparing humansocialized dogs and wolves, showing the wolves to outperform dogs, in contrast to the domestication hypothesis (Range & Marshall-Pescini, 2022;Udell et al, 2008Udell et al, , 2010. Regarding the investigation of the effects of domestication, it would be necessary to conduct comparable assessments of the sensitivity to human pointing gestures in socialized individuals of wildcats (Felis lybica and/or Felis silvestris; Pongrácz, Szapu & Faragó, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has previously been suggested that the process of domestication has selected for socio-cognitive abilities that enable domesticated species to better communicate with humans compared to wild species (Hare et al, 2002). However, recent studies directly comparing human-socialized dogs and wolves, showing the wolves to outperform dogs, contrast the domestication hypothesis (Range & Marshall-Pescini, 2022). Regarding the investigation of the effects of domestication, it would be necessary to conduct comparable assessments of the sensitivity to human pointing gestures in socialized individuals of wildcats ( Felis lybica and/or Felis silvestris ; Pongrácz, Szapu & Faragó, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing cats’ (Felis catus) sensitivity to human pointing gestures

Maeses

Wascher

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wide range of non-human animal species have been shown to be able to respond to human referential signals, such as pointing gestures. The aim of the present study was to replicate previous findings showing cats to be sensitive to human pointing cues (Miklósi et al. 2005). In our study, we presented two types of human pointing gestures - momentary direct pointing and momentary cross-body pointing. We tested nine rescue cats in a two-way object choice task. On a group level, the success rate of cats was 74.4 percentage. Cats performed significantly above chance level in both the direct pointing and cross-body pointing condition. Trial number, rewarded side and type of gesture did not significantly affect the cats' performance in the experiment. On an individual level, 5 out of 7 cats who completed 20 trials, performed significantly above chance level. Two cats only completed 10 trials. One of them succeeded in 8, the other in 6 of these. The results of our study replicate previous findings of cats being responsive to human direct pointing cues and add additional knowledge about their ability to follow cross-body pointing cues. Our results highlight a domestic species, socialised in a group setting, to possess heterospecific communication skills, however we have to consider parsimonious explanations, such as local and stimulus enhancement.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing cats’ (Felis catus) sensitivity to human pointing gestures

Maeses

Wascher

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is noteworthy that Jim et al [ 27 ] found a significant difference in the first experimenter dogs looked at but not in their first approach, thus future studies may yield different results if alternative measures are used to analyse reputation formation. In Jim et al [ 27 ], it was possible to analyse dogs’ looking behaviour because the partners wore body cameras; using this measure may be particularly fruitful when studying wolves because they are more neophobic than dogs [ 56 , 57 ] and appear to have an ingrained fear of humans [ 58 , 59 ]. Therefore, in this study, the wolves may have formed reputations of the humans but were not comfortable approaching the unfamiliar partners and did not cross the line dug in the ground inside the test enclosure to indicate that they had made a choice in the test phase.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wolves and dogs fail to form reputations of humans after indirect and direct experience in a food-giving situation

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reputation is a key component in social interactions of group-living animals and appears to play a role in the establishment of cooperation. Animals can form reputations of individuals by directly interacting with them or by observing them interact with a third party, i.e., eavesdropping. Previous research has focused on whether dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) can eavesdrop on humans because of their ability to cooperate with humans, however the results are mixed and if they can eavesdrop, it is unknown whether this ability evolved during the domestication process or whether it was inherited from their ancestor, wolves (Canis lupus). Our study investigated whether equally hand-raised, pack-living dogs and wolves can form reputations of humans in a food-giving situation through indirect and/or direct experience. The experimental procedure comprised three parts: baseline (to test whether the subject preferred a person prior to the experiment), observation and testing. In the observation phase, the subject observed two humans interact with a dog demonstrator–one acted generously and fed the dog, and the other acted selfishly and refused to feed the dog. The subject could then choose which person to approach in the test phase. In the following experience phase, the animals interacted directly with the same two humans who behaved either in a generous or selfish manner. Then, they were again given a choice whom to approach. We found that dogs and wolves, at the group level, did not differentiate between a generous or selfish partner after indirect or direct experience, but wolves were more attentive towards the generous person during the observation phase and some dogs and wolves did prefer the generous partner, at least after indirect and direct experience was combined. Our study suggests that reputation formation may be more difficult than expected for animals and we emphasise the importance of context when studying reputation formation in animals.

show abstract

“…Indeed, some provocative hypotheses suggest that selection for "friendliness" may be a driving force in the physical and cognitive changes seen in domestication (Trut, 1999) and that recent human evolution can perhaps be characterized as "self-domestication," a similar, but self-imposed, selective pressure for prosocial behavior resulting in species-wide "friendliness" (Hare, 2017;Wrangham, 2019). A better understanding of dog domestication has potential to illuminate important transitions in the evolution of our own species (but see Range & Marshall-Pescini, 2022).…”

Section: Evolutionary Origins Of Cognition and Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

ManyDogs Project: A Big Team Science Approach to Investigating Canine Behavior and Cognition

ManyDogs¹,

Alberghina²,

Bray³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although dogs have a special place in human history as the first domesticated species and play important roles in many cultures around the world, their role in scientific studies has been relatively recent. With a few notable exceptions (e.g., Darwin, Pavlov, Scott & Fuller), domestic dogs were not commonly the subject of rigorous scientific investigation of behavior until the late 1990s. While the number of canine science studies has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, most research groups are limited in the inferences they can draw due to the relatively small sample sizes used along with the exceptional diversity observed in dogs (e.g., breed, geographic location, experience). To this end, we introduce the ManyDogs Project, an international consortium of researchers interested in taking a big team science approach to understanding canine behavioral science. We begin by discussing why studying dogs provides valuable insights into behavior and cognition, evolutionary processes, human health, and applications for animal welfare. We then highlight other big team science projects that have previously been conducted in canine science and emphasize the benefits of our approach. Finally, we introduce the ManyDogs Project and our mission: 1) replicating important findings, 2) investigating moderators that need a large sample size such as breed differences, 3) reaching methodological consensus, 4) investigating cross-cultural differences, and finally 5) setting a standard for replication studies in general. In doing so, we hope to address previous limitations in individual lab studies and previous big team science frameworks to deepen our understanding of canine behavior and cognition.

show abstract

Comparing wolves and dogs: current status and implications for human ‘self-domestication’

Cited by 57 publications

References 114 publications

Assessing cats’ (Felis catus) sensitivity to human pointing gestures

Assessing cats’ (Felis catus) sensitivity to human pointing gestures

Wolves and dogs fail to form reputations of humans after indirect and direct experience in a food-giving situation

ManyDogs Project: A Big Team Science Approach to Investigating Canine Behavior and Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About