1 / 19

Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues

Cindy Ung, Alicia Ross, and Candis Bergerson. Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Introduction: Dogs. Previous studies Find hidden food by following the pointing of humans Beg for food from humans that can see them Avoid forbidden food when human is present

quanda
Download Presentation

Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cindy Ung, Alicia Ross, and Candis Bergerson Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues

  2. Introduction: Dogs • Previous studies • Find hidden food by following the pointing of humans • Beg for food from humans that can see them • Avoid forbidden food when human is present • Conclusion: Dogs have a “theory of mind.”

  3. Do Wolves have a Theory of Mind? • Earlier studies lean towards no • Cannot follow even simple human cues such as tapping or proximal pointing • Hand-reared wolves can find food when a container was touched by a human • Dogs outperformed socialized wolf pups in following a human momentary distal point • This suggests that sensitivity to human cues is a derived trait in dogs!

  4. Do Wolves have a Theory of Mind? • BUT...there is a problem with this idea • Variation in the ability of pet dogs to follow human points, even in dogs from the same litter • And problems with the previous studies • Testing conditions used for dogs were different than those used for wolves • Wolves generally tested outside, dogs inside in an isolated room • Wolves tested with a barrier (fence) between them and the experimenter, but no barrier was created for the dogs

  5. Experiment 1:Momentary Distal Pointing • Test for: • Influence of outdoor vs indoor testing environment • Influence of life history (socialization) • Influence of experimenter familiarity?

  6. Methods: Subjects • 5 groups of 8 adult canids 1.Wolves tested outside, familiar experimenter 2. Pet dogs tested outside, familiar experimenter 3. Pet dogs tested outside, unfamiliar experimenter 4. Pet dogs tested inside, unfamiliar experimenter 5. Shelter dogs tested inside, unfamiliar experimenter • All subjects chosen based on willingness to approach experimenter and eat from her hand

  7. Methods: Subjects

  8. Methods: Basic Procedure • Subject ~2.5m away from experimenter • Experimenter stands between 2 closed, unmarked paint cans (~0.5m) • Correct container pseudo-randomly assigned • Experimenter points for 4 seconds • Correct choice: clicker & food reward • Incorrect: neutral position, no reward

  9. Methods: Pretraining • Experimenter placed food reward on a container while the subject watched • Subject allowed to eat the food • Clicker used on approach • Repeat with other container • Repeat until subject is comfortable eating food off of containers

  10. Methods: Testing • Basic procedure • 10 experimental trials • 3 incorrect choices in a row = 2 pretraining trials • 1 control trial for every 2 experimental trials • Experimenter remained neutral, no pointing • Clicker and food reward for correct choice

  11. Results • Only wolves and pet dog tested inside performed above chance levels (P=0.03, P=0.004) • 8/10 correct trials = mastery • 6/8 wolves • 3/8 dogs indoors • 2/16 dogs outdoors (2 groups) • No shelter dogs • None could identify correct choice on control trials

  12. Discussion for Experiment 1 • Shows that: • Socialized wolves given daily human contact outperform pet dogs in following human cues, despite no previous exposure. • Influence of life history (shelter dogs) • Environment (indoors vs outdoors) influenced performance in otherwise comparable pet dogs

  13. Experiment 2:Presence of a Partial Visual Barrier • Does a fence make a difference?

  14. Results • The no-fence group performed better than the fence group • All dogs in the no-fence group were able to use the cue to identify the correct container above chance levels • Only 3 of 7 dogs from the fence group were able to perform above chance

  15. Discussion for Experiment 2 • Shows that testing conditions can influence the success of dogs • Poor performance by wolves in previous studies may be due to different testing conditions

  16. General Discussion • Domestication alone does not explain sensitivity to human social cues • Shown by performance of shelter dogs • Domestication still makes a difference • Domestic dogs can still begin socializing with humans much later than wolves can • Success of other domesticated animals does not necessarily show support for domestication hypothesis • Could be due more to interaction with humans than to genes, as well as predisposition to social behavior

  17. General Discussion • Even if animals are genetically capable of recognizing human social cues, they differ in their ability to act on specific cues because of differing histories and environments • Reflects the effects of environment and experiences of children • A study showed that most of the differences in theory of mind ability in children were due to different environmental factors, genetic differences only accounted for 7% of the differences

More Related