Species-specific differences and similarities in the behavior of hand-raised dog and wolf pups in social situations with humans

Department of Ethology, Eötvös University, Budapest, Pázmány P. 1/c. 1117 Hungary.
Developmental Psychobiology (Impact Factor: 3.31). 09/2005; 47(2):111-22. DOI: 10.1002/dev.20082
Source: PubMed


In order to reveal early species-specific differences, we observed the behavior of dog puppies (n = 11) and wolf pups (n = 13) hand raised and intensively socialized in an identical way. The pups were studied in two object-preference tests at age 3, 4, and 5 weeks. After a short isolation, we observed the subjects' behavior in the presence of a pair of objects, one was always the subject's human foster parent (caregiver) and the other was varied; nursing bottle (3 weeks), unfamiliar adult dog (3 and 5 weeks), unfamiliar experimenter (4 and 5 weeks), and familiar conspecific age mate (4 weeks). Dogs and wolves did not differ in their general activity level during the tests. Wolf pups showed preference for the proximity of the caregiver in two of the tests; Bottle-Caregiver at the age of 3 weeks and Experimenter-Caregiver at the age of 5 weeks, while dogs showed preference to the caregiver in three tests; conspecific Pup-Caregiver and Experimenter-Caregiver at the age of 4 weeks and dog-caregiver at the age of 5. Compared to wolves, dogs tended to display more communicative signals that could potentially facilitate social interactions, such as distress vocalization, tail wagging, and gazing at the humans' face. In contrast to dog puppies, wolf pups showed aggressive behavior toward a familiar experimenter and also seemed to be more prone to avoidance. Our results demonstrate that already at this early age--despite unprecedented intensity of socialization and the comparable social (human) environment during early development--there are specific behavioral differences between wolves and dogs mostly with regard to their interactions with humans.


Available from: Eniko Kubinyi
  • Source
    • "Species differences in exploratory behaviors during postnatal development may link social attention and learning capacities. For instance, domesticated dogs and wolves differ in their behaviors and attention to human signals shortly after birth [Gácsi et al., 2005; Virányi et al., 2008]. Evolutionary changes in exploratory behaviors and the motivational circuitries underlying them may contribute to important behavioral differences in adulthood [Miklósi et al., 2003; Kaplan and Oudeyer, 2007]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Spatial gradients in the initiation and termination of basic processes, such as cytogenesis, cell-type specification and dendritic maturation, are ubiquitous in developing nervous systems. Such gradients can produce a niche adaptation in a particular species. For example, the high density of photoreceptors and neurons in the 'area centralis' of some vertebrate retinas result from the early maturation of its center relative to its periphery. Across species, regularities in allometric scaling of brain regions can derive from conserved spatial gradients: longer neurogenesis in the alar versus the basal plate of the neural tube is associated with relatively greater expansion of alar plate derivatives in larger brains. We describe gradients of neurogenesis within the isocortex and their effects on adult cytoarchitecture within and across species. Longer duration of neurogenesis in the caudal isocortex is associated with increased neuron number and density per column relative to the rostral isocortex. Later-maturing features of single neurons, such as soma size and dendritic spine numbers reflect this gradient. Considering rodents and primates, the longer the duration of isocortical neurogenesis in each species, the greater the rostral-to-caudal difference in neuron number and density per column. Extended developmental duration produces substantial, predictable changes in the architecture of the isocortex in larger brains, and presumably a progressively changed functional organization, the properties of which we do not yet fully understand. Many features of isocortical architecture previously viewed as species- or niche-specific adaptations can now be integrated as the natural outcomes of spatiotemporal gradients that are deployed in larger brains. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Brain Behavior and Evolution 09/2014; 84(2):81-92. DOI:10.1159/000365181 · 2.01 Impact Factor
    • "It has been suggested that human-directed gazing represents a foundation on which dog–human communication evolved, and that dogs' propensity to look at humans, or to quickly learn to do so, represents a behavioural feature that distinguishes dogs from wolves, emerging during the course of domestication (Miklósi et al. 2003; Kubinyi et al. 2007; Virányi et al. 2008; Gácsi et al. 2009a, b). On a number of tasks—for example in two-way choice pointing tasks (Virányi et al. 2008; Gácsi et al. 2009a, b), and a task in which animals were reinforced for looking into a person's face—young hand-raised wolf pups were significantly slower to initiate or maintain eye contact with humans compared to similarlyraised dog pups (Gácsi et al. 2005). This difference was maintained also as juveniles (Gácsi et al. 2009a, b). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study of dog social cognition is relatively recent and is rapidly developing, providing an interesting and multi-faceted picture of our ‘‘best friend’s’’ sociocognitive abilities. In particular, since Miklósi et al.’s (2003) seminal work ‘‘A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do’’, there has been a surge of interest in the area of dog–human communication. In the current chapter we focus on dogs’ comprehension of the human gaze and their ability to use human-directed-gazing as a communicative tool. We first review studies on the social significance of human eye contact for dogs, their understanding of eyes as indicators of attention, and their ability to take another’s visual perspective into account. We also consider dogs’ understanding of human eye-gaze as a communicative act, in terms of its potentially referential nature and as an ostensive cue signalling the communicative intent of the actor. We then move on to review studies on dogs’ human-directed gazing behaviour, discussing whether it may be considered part of an intentional and referential communicative act, what the underlying motivations and contexts in which this behaviour is exhibited may be, and what variables affect its occurrence. Where open questions remains, we outline current debates and highlight potential directions for future research.
    Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior, Edited by A. Horowitz (ed, 01/2014: chapter Chapter 5: pages 101-131; Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014.
  • Source
    • "There is also strong evidence that dogs come to form specific bonds with specific people. Dogs begin to show a preference for a familiar human over a stranger by 4 weeks of age (Gácsi et al. 2005). Adult dogs show behaviors toward familiar human adults that are similar to the behaviors of human infants toward caregivers. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dogs are strongly influenced by human behavior, and they readily form bonds with specific humans. Yet these lines of inquiry are not often combined. The goal of this study was to investigate whether such bonds would play a role in how dogs behave in response to human signals. Using various types of signals, we compared dogs' use of information from a familiar human (their owner) versus an unfamiliar human when choosing between two food containers. In some conditions, the owner indicated a container that gave food and a stranger indicated a container that did not; in other conditions, this was reversed. Dogs more often chose the container indicated by or nearest to their owner, even when this container never yielded a food reward. In two conditions, dogs chose at chance: a control condition in which both pointers were strangers and a condition in which the owner and stranger sat reading books and provided no social signal. This is the first study to directly compare owners to strangers in a single food-choice situation. Our results suggest that dogs make decisions by attending preferentially to social signals from humans with whom they have become familiar.
    Animal Cognition 08/2013; 17(2). DOI:10.1007/s10071-013-0677-0 · 2.58 Impact Factor
Show more