Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task

Animal Cognition volume 8, pages 37–47 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were tested in four experiments for their understanding of means-end connections. In each of the experiments, the dogs attempted to retrieve a food treat that could be seen behind a barrier and which was connected, via string, to a within-reach wooden block. In the experiments, either one or two strings were present, but the treat was attached only to one string. Successful retrieval of the treat required the animals to pull the appropriate string (either by pawing or by grasping the wooden block in their jaws) until the treat emerged from under the barrier. The results showed that the dogs were successful if the treat was in a perpendicular line to the barrier, i.e. straight ahead, but not when the string was at an angle: in the latter condition, the typical response was a proximity error in that the dogs pawed or mouthed at a location closest in line to the treat. When two strings that crossed were present, the dogs tended to pull on the wrong string. The combined results from the experiments show that, although dogs can learn to pull on a string to obtain food, they do not spontaneously understand means-end connections involving strings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Adams DK (1929) Experimental studies of adaptive behavior in cats. Comp Psychol Monogr 6(1):1–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierens de Haan JA (1930) Über das Suchen nach verstecktem Futter bei Affen und Halbaffen. Zugleich ein Beitrag zu der Frage nach dem konkreten Verständnis dieser Tiere. Z Vergl Physiol 11:630–655

    Google Scholar 

  • Boakes RA (1977) Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In: Davis H, Hurwitz HMB (eds) Operant-Pavlovian interactions. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 67–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman M (1981) Intention and means-end reasoning. Philos Rev 90:252–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown AL (1990) Domain-specific principles affect learning and transfer in children. Cogn Sci 14:107–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doré FY, Dumas C (1987) Psychology of animal cognition: Piagetian studies. Psychol Bull 102:219–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducker G, Rensch B (1977) Solution of patterned string problems by birds. Behaviour 62:164–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy TJ, Gallup GG, Povinelli DJ (1993) Attribution of cognitive states to animals: anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. J Soc Issues 49:87–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischel W (1930) Weitere Untersuchungen der Ziele der tierischen Handlung. Z Vergl Physiol 11:523–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischel W (1933) Das Verhalten von Hunden bei doppelter Zielsetzung und doppelter Handlungsmoeglichkeit. Z Vergl Physiol 19:170–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank H, Frank MG (1985) Comparative manipulation-test performance in ten-week-old wolves (Canis lupus) and Alaskan malamutes (Canis familiaris): a Piagetian interpretation. J Comp Psychol 99:266–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk MS (2002) Problem solving skills in young yellow-crowned parakeets (Cyanoramphus auriceps). Anim Cogn 5:167–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grzimek B (1942) Weitere Vergleichsversuche mit Wolf und Hund. Z Vergl Physiol 5:59–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C (1999) Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus oedipus. Anim Behav 57:565–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser MD, Santos LR, Spaepen GM, Pearson HE (2002) Problem solving, inhibition and domain-specific experience: experiments on cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Anim Behav 64:387–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B (1995) An experimental investigation of insight in common ravens (Corvus corax). Auk 112:994–1003

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood BM, Hauser MD, Anderson L, Santos L (1999) Gravity biases in a non-human primate? Dev Sci 2:35–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klüver H (1933) Behavior mechanisms in monkeys. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhler W (1925) The mentality of apes. Harcourt Brace, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Munakata Y, McClelland JL, Johnson MH, Siegler RS (1997) Rethinking infant knowledge: toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychol Rev 104:686–713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nakajima S, Arimitsu K, Lattal KM (2002) Estimation of animal intelligence by university students in Japan and the United States. Anthrozoös 15:194–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Osthaus B, Slater AM, Lea SEG (2003) Can dogs defy gravity? A comparison with the human infant and a non-human primate. Dev Sci 6:489–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Page EB (1963) Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: a significance test for linear ranks. J Am Stat Assoc 58:216–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg IM (2002) The value of the Piagetian framework for comparative cognitive studies. Anim Cogn 5:177–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pepperberg IM (2004) “Insightful” string-pulling in grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is affected by vocal competence. Anim Cogn. DOI 10.1007/s10071-004-0218-y

  • Pfungst O (1911) Clever Hans (the horse of Mr Von Osten): a contribution to experimental animal and human psychology. Henry Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1953) The origin of intelligence in the child. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos LR, Ericson BN, Hauser MD (1999) Constraints on problem solving and inhibition: object retrieval in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 113:186–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarris EG (1937) Die individuellen Unterschiede bei Hunden. Z Angew Psychol Charakterk 52:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheumann M, Call J (2004) The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus). Anim Cogn. DOI 10.1007/s10071-004-0216-0

  • Scott JP, Fuller JL (1965) Genetics and the social behavior of the dog. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd WT (1915) Tests on adaptive intelligence in dogs and cats, as compared with adaptive intelligence in Rhesus monkeys. Am J Psychol 26:211–216

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spinozzi G, Poti P (1993) Piagetian stage 5 in 2 infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)—the development of permanence of objects and the spatialisation of causality. Int J Primatol 14:905–917

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolman EC (1937) The acquisition of string-pulling by rats—conditioned response or sign-gestalt? Psychol Rev 44:195–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Vince MA (1956) ‘String pulling’ in birds. I. Individual differences in wild adult great tits. Br J Anim Behav 4:111–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Vince MA (1958) “String-pulling” in birds. II. Differences related to age in greenfinches, chaffinches, and canaries. Behav 6:53–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Vince MA (1961) “String-pulling” in birds. III. The successful response in greenfinches and canaries. Behaviour 17:103–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburn SL, Lancaster J (1968) The evolution of hunting. In: Lee RB, De Vore I (eds) Man the hunter. Aldine, Chicago, pp 293–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Willatts P (1984a) Stages in the development of intentional search by young infants. Dev Psychol 20:389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willatts P (1984b) The stage-IV infant’s solution of problems requiring the use of supports. Infant Behav Dev 7:125–134

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sally Jones from Dogs “R” Dogs and Taunton Dog Training Club for their help with the data collection, David Taylor for constructing and repairing the apparatus, and Dr Lucy Jacobs for facilities provided to Stephen Lea as a Visiting Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, where the writing of the paper was completed. All experiments were carried out in accordance with laws governing animal welfare in the United Kingdom.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK

    Britta Osthaus, Stephen E. G. Lea & Alan M. Slater

Authors
  1. Britta Osthaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen E. G. Lea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan M. Slater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Britta Osthaus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Osthaus, B., Lea, S.E.G. & Slater, A.M. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 8, 37–47 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0230-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0230-2

Keywords

search

Navigation