Search This Blog

Showing posts with label wolf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wolf. Show all posts

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Attachment to humans: a comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog puppies


Attachment Theory, Hand-Reared Wolves



József Topál, Márta Gácsi, Ádám Miklósi, Zsófia Virányi, Enikő Kubinyi, Vilmos Csányi
Attachment to humans: a comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog puppies
Animal Behaviour, Volume 70, Issue 6, December 2005, Pages 1367–1375

Using the Strange Situation Test originally developed for testing the mother–infant relationship in humans, we compared the attachment behaviour of extensively socialized (hand-reared) dog, Canis familiaris, and wolf, Canis lupus, puppies towards their human caregiver with that of pet dog puppies of the same age. The experiment was designed to study whether (1) dog puppies as young as 16 weeks show attachment to a human caregiver, (2) extensive socialization by human caregivers affects attachment behaviour of dog puppies and (3) evolutionary changes (in the form of species-specific differences between wolf and dog pups) affect the emergence of dog–human attachment. We found a characteristic selective responsiveness to the owner in young dogs, similar to that observed in adults. This finding supports the view that puppies show patterns of attachment towards their owners. Extensive socialization had only a minor effect on the attachment behaviour in dog puppies, as the behaviour of pet dogs and hand-reared dogs was basically similar. However, we found a significant species-specific difference between wolves and dogs: both extensively socialized and pet dog puppies were more responsive to the owner than to an unfamiliar human participant, whereas extensively socialized wolves were not. Behavioural differences could be best explained by assuming that selective processes took place in the course of domestication (genetic changes) that are related to the attachment system of the dog.
Domestication is generally viewed as an evolutionary process controlled by human influence (Price 1984). The symbiotic relationship between humans and nonhuman animals entails adaptational demands, which create new conditions of selection for the species to be domesticated and thus might result in a wide range of genetic modifications. The dog has a long history of adaptation to the human environment ( [Vilá et al., 1997] and [Savolainen et al., 2002]), and it is widely assumed that the selection process during domestication may have altered not only their morphological traits but also their behaviour and behaviour control systems ( [Belyaev, 1979] and [Coppinger and Coppinger, 2002]).
Recent studies have suggested an unusual competence of dogs in social interactions with humans (cooperation: [Topál et al., 1997], [Naderi et al., 2001] and [Naderi et al., 2002]; social learning: [Kubinyi et al., 2003], [Pongrácz et al., 2003a] and [Pongrácz et al., 2003b]; communication: [Miklósi et al., 1998], [Miklósi et al., 2000], [Agnetta et al., 2001], [Soproni et al., 2001] and [Soproni et al., 2002]). However, to understand the significance of domestication-related changes in the behaviour of dogs, we need to compare dogs with wolves (Miklósi et al. 2004). In line with this, recent comparisons of the social cognitive skills in dogs and socialized wolves within the context of the interspecific relationship with humans have shed light on some genetic divergences at the behavioural level ( [Hare et al., 2002] and [Miklósi et al., 2003]). Compared with wolves, the dogs' preferential looking at the human in problem-solving situations and their superior performance in using human directional gestures support the existence of genetic predispositions related to the domestication process in the emergence of social cognitive abilities in dogs.
In general, it is widely accepted that the evolutionary emergence of social cognition is closely related to the ‘social field’ (Kummer 1982), which often presents more complex adaptational demands for the animal than do physical characteristics of the environment (Tomasello & Call 1997). One of the basic behavioural phenomena of social relationships is attachment. The evolutionary approach to function and mechanism suggests that attachment is one of the main behaviour organizing systems in parent–offspring relationships, and it is also claimed to be the basic organizational factor for any species' social structure leading to group formation (Bowlby 1958). Attachment is an asymmetrical social relationship between two individuals, which can be tested experimentally in choice situations such as the Strange Situation Test (SST) originally developed to study the mother–infant relationship in humans (Ainsworth & Wittig 1969). The paradigmatic element of this procedure is that separation from the caregiver in an unfamiliar environment evokes anxiety (which is manifested behaviourally in proximity seeking), while the activated attachment system upon reunion with the caregiver manifests in different forms of contact-seeking behaviours. Importantly, attachment behaviour is oriented mainly towards the caregiver, in the sense that there is a significant difference in the level of proximity and contact seeking, and in the effort made to maintain contact, between the caregiver and an unfamiliar person in the same novel situation. Adult dogs show specific patterns of attachment behaviour towards their owner in the SST ( [Topál et al., 1998] and [Prato-Previde et al., 2003]), suggesting a case of functional analogy (evolutionary convergence) to the human infant–parent attachment. Gácsi et al. (2001) reported that attachment develops rapidly: a short period of interaction with humans evoked attachment behaviour towards the handler in adult dogs that had been deprived of human contact (shelter dogs) and the dogs differentiated between their handler and a stranger in the same way as adult pet dogs did.
We designed a comparative experiment to investigate the attachment behaviour of hand-reared and extensively socialized wolf and dog puppies and pet dog puppies that had received a normal socialization regimen from their owners. We investigated whether (1) pet dogs' attachment to humans is observable in the SST as early as 16 weeks of age, (2) extensive socialization by human caregivers causes any change in attachment behaviour of dog puppies and (3) there are species-specific differences between wolves and dogs in their attachment behaviour to humans.
Although one might assume that the ability to show attachment behaviour to individuals of another species (humans) in adulthood is a unique feature of the domestic dog, despite much interest ( [Scott, 1963], [Scott, 1992] and [Ginsburg and Hiestand, 1992]), there has been no clear theory explaining the emergence of the phenomenon. By comparing the emergence of attachment behaviour to humans in dogs and socialized wolves tested by the same experimental method we can examine whether inheritance (genetic background) or environmental effects (rearing history) are more important.
Two hypotheses can be formulated. The socialization hypothesis suggests that attachment could develop mainly as a result of extensive hand rearing and individual socialization to the human social environment (i.e. enculturation) during the ‘critical period’ of socialization (Freedman et al. 1961). The domestication hypothesis, however, claims that there could have been specific genetic changes (in the attachment behaviour organizing system) that have emerged as the result of selective breeding for dependency and attachment to humans (see also [Hare et al., 2002] and [Miklósi et al., 2003] for similar explanations regarding communicative abilities in dogs). The socialization hypothesis predicts that hand-reared wolf and dog puppies will show similar forms of attachment behaviour to their human caregivers, whereas pet dog puppies, being less extensively socialized, will show less attachment to their owners. In contrast, the domestication hypothesis predicts species-specific differences in attachment behaviour to humans between wolves and dogs reared in the same way (i.e. dogs should show more specific attachment behaviour than wolves towards humans). These explanations are not mutually exclusive, however, and both of the hypothesized mechanisms could affect the behaviour phenotype.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do





Ádám Miklósi, Enikö Kubinyi, József Topál, Márta Gácsi, Zsófia Virányi, Vilmos Csányi
A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do
Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 9, 29 April 2003, Pages 763–766

Abstract

The present investigations were undertaken to compare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparable levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing cues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not. Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face. Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has lead to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization.

Theory of mind in dogs?: examining method and concept.

Horowitz, A.
Theory of mind in dogs?: examining method and concept.
Learning and Behvior (impact factor: 1.52). 07/2011; 39(4):314-7. DOI:10.3758/s13420-011-0041-7    

Abstract

In line with other research, Udell, Dorey, and Wynne's (in press) finding that dogs and wolves pass on some trials of a putative theory-of-mind test and fail on others is as informative about the methods and concepts of the research as about the subjects. This commentary expands on these points. The intertrial differences in the target article demonstrate how critical the choice of cues is in experimental design; the intersubject-group differences demonstrate how life histories can interact with experimental design. Even the best-designed theory-of-mind tests have intractable logical problems. Finally, these and previous research results call for the introduction of an intermediate stage of ability, a rudimentary theory of mind, to describe subjects' performance.          

Reevaluating canine perspective-taking behavior.


Udell MA, Wynne CD
Reevaluating canine perspective-taking behavior.
Learn Behav. 2011 Dec ;39(4):318-23. doi: 10.3758/s13420-011-0043-5.

Abstract

Udell, Dorey, and Wynne (2011) demonstrated that both domesticated and nondomesticated canids-specifically, gray wolves-have the capacity to succeed on perspective-taking tasks, suggesting that dogs' ability to respond to the human attentional state is not a by-product of domestication alone. Furthermore, not all dogs were successful on the task. Instead, the occluder type used was a strong predictor of performance, indicating the important role of environment and experience for tasks of this type. Here, we address several commentaries reflecting on the methods and design of that study, as well as the interpretation of the results. We also discuss the positive shift toward more interactive approaches in the field of canine behavior and cognition. Finally, we question the functionality of describing canine social behavior in terms of theory of mind.

Can your dog read your mind?: Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking.



Monique A. R. Udell, Nicole R. Dorey, Clive D. L. Wynne
Can your dog read your mind?: Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking.
Learn Behav. 2011 December; 39(4): 289–302. doi: 10.3758/s13420-011-0034-6


Abstract

Prior studies have documented the domestic dog's (Canis lupus familiaris) sensitivity to human attentional state, including a tendency to preferentially beg for food from attentive individuals and an ability to selectively perform forbidden behaviors when humans are not looking. Due to the success of dogs on perspective-taking tasks, some have hypothesized that domestic dogs may have theory of mind, or the ability to infer what other individuals know. Here we provide the first evidence that nondomesticated canids, grey wolves (Canis lupus), are also sensitive to human attentional state under some conditions. We also demonstrate that dogs do not display an undifferentiated sensitivity to all visual cues of attentional state. Rather, dogs are more sensitive to stimuli encountered in their home environment. Some dogs perform poorly on perspective-taking tasks. These findings have important implications for the interpretation of research designed to understand complex social cognition across species.

Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues


Monique A.R. Udell, Nicole R. Dorey, Clive D.L. Wynne
Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues
Animal Behaviour, Volume 76, Issue 6, December 2008, Pages 1767–1773

Abstract
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.