Wednesday, 4 December 2013
Do Dogs Or Hand-Reared Wolves Pay More Attention to People?
Photo: Holly Kuchera / Shutterstock
Eleven wolves and fourteen dogs took part in the study. They
were hand-reared in similar conditions, and all were taught basic obedience such
as sit, down, and how to walk on a leash. They were tested at 4, 5 and 7 months
of age.
The study took place in a meadow. A dead chick was used as
food in the experiment. Each wolf or dog
was held on a short leash while a demonstrator (human or canine) put the chick
in one of three locations. Then they were released on a 10m long line to
explore as they wished. Each trial ended after the chick had been found or two
minutes had elapsed, whichever was soonest.
In two other conditions, the demonstrator (human or canine)
walked to one of the locations and back without a chick. This was a ‘pretend’ scenario
to check the animals were paying attention. In a control condition, the chick
was hidden prior to the animal arriving, and there was no demonstration; this
tested whether they could find it by smell alone.
Because the handler had a dead chick in her pocket during
these three conditions, she also had to have a dead chick in her pocket during
the dog and human demonstrator conditions, so that this would not be an
extraneous factor.
The results showed that both dogs and wolves were more
likely to find the dead chick in the meadow if there was a demonstrator. In all
five conditions, dogs were more likely to find the chick than wolves, though it
is not clear if they were better at it or more motivated.
There was a significant difference between dogs and wolves
in the demonstrator conditions. Dogs performed equally well whether the
demonstrator was a dog or a human. However, wolves performed much better when
the demonstrator was human. In fact, the wolves did not pay much attention to
the dog demonstrator, whether it really hid the chick or just pretended to.
The fact that both wolves and dogs did better when there was
a demonstrator shows they used visual information, and not just smell, to
locate the chick. The scientists say, “Although it is clear that canines have
an extraordinary sense of smell, little is known regarding in what situations
they actually use olfactory cues if not specifically trained to do so.” A recent paper by Alexandra Horowitz et al (2013) is
a fascinating first step in understanding the sense of smell of ordinary pet
dogs.
In the control condition both dogs and wolves sometimes
found the chick, showing they could use their sense of smell to locate
it.
Interestingly, they did less well at this when they were 7 months
compared to
younger. Another difference as they aged was that they spent longer
watching
the demonstrations. It’s not clear if this is because – by this time –
they had
prior experience of the experimental set-up and had learned the
demonstrator
would be hiding food. It could also be a developmental difference, or
that they simply had more experience with both dogs and people at this
point.
The wolves were better at finding the chicks
following a human demonstration. It is hard to interpret the results in terms
of domestication, however. Dogs were more attentive to the human control
trials, which could be because they have evolved to pay more attention to
humans. Or it might be that the wolves had a better understanding of
causality, and did not pay attention to a human with no food because they knew nothing was in it for them.
The scientists say, “Interestingly, the wolves were less
interested in the dog demonstration than the dogs even when the demonstrator
had a chick in its mouth, whereas both groups paid similar attention to the
demonstration in the dog control trials. This result is in contrast with our
expectations based on the domestication hypothesis… the wolves went to the end
point more often in the human demonstration trials than in any of the other
three conditions. This suggests that they paid special attention to the human
demonstration also when compared to the dog demonstration.”
Although there are several possible explanations, the ones
the scientists deem most likely are that the wolves have a better understanding
than dogs that food comes from humans, or that the wolves were sensitive to
signals from the demonstrator dogs. It turns out the demonstrator dogs “did not
like to take the dead chicks in their mouths and clearly showed their
resistance by turning their head or trying to spit the chick out.” The wolves
may have recognized these signs of disgust, and hence been less interested in
the food.
If the experiment was repeated, it would be a good idea to
use a food item the demonstrator dogs do not object to. It’s unfortunate
they
were asked to do something they did not like, particularly since the
paper
states that the dog and wolf participants were given a choice as to
whether or
not they took part. The researchers say they used dead chicks because
"the animals are highly motivated to obtain them," and obviously it has
to be an item the demonstrator dogs are trained to drop and leave
behind.
The study shows that both dogs and wolves can use
information from a visual demonstration to find food, but wolves had
most success following a human demonstrator. These findings
potentially contradict the domestication hypothesis, but because there
are several possible explanations, more research is needed.
Does your dog pay attention when you are doing things with
food, such as cooking or eating?
Reference
Range, F., & Viranyi, S. (2013). Social learning from humans or conspecifics: differences and similarities between wolves and dogs Frontiers in Psychology, 4 : 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00868
source
No comments:
Post a Comment