Animal Cognition

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 575–583 | Cite as

Dogs are able to solve a means-end task

  • Friederike RangeEmail author
  • Marleen Hentrup
  • Zsófia Virányi
Original Paper


Dogs, although very skilled in social-communicative tasks, have shown limited abilities in the domain of physical cognition. Consequently, several researchers hypothesized that domestication enhanced dogs’ cognitive abilities in the social realm, but relaxed selection on the physical one. For instance, dogs failed to demonstrate means-end understanding, an important form of relying on physical causal connection, when tested in a string-pulling task. Here, we tested dogs in an “on/off” task using a novel approach. Thirty-two dogs were confronted with four different conditions in which they could choose between two boards one with a reward “on” and another one with a reward “off” (reward was placed next to the board). The dogs chose the correct board when (1) both rewards were placed at the same distance from the dog, when (2) the reward placed “on” the board was closer to the dog, and (3) even when the reward placed “off” the board was much closer to the dog and was food. Interestingly, in the latter case, dogs did not perform above chance, if instead of a direct reward, the dogs had to retrieve an object placed on the board to get a food reward. In contrast to previous string-pulling studies, our results show that dogs are able to solve a means-end task even if proximity of the unsupported reward is a confounding factor.


Support problem On/off problem Means-end understanding Dogs Clicker training Reward type 



The project is financially supported by Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects P21418 and P21244 (FR). We thank Corsin Müller for helping with the analyses, the dog owners for participating, and Daniel Povinelli and three referees for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We further thank a private sponsor and Royal Canin for financial support of the Clever Dog Lab.

Conflict of interest

We declare that all experiments conducted in this study comply with the current laws of Austria where they were performed and that the authors have no conflict of interest.


  1. Auersperg AMI, Gajdon GK, Huber L (2009) Kea (Nestor notabilis) consider spatial relationships between objects in the support problem. Biol Lett 5:455–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bird CD, Emery NJ (2010) Rooks perceive support relations similar to six-month-old babies. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 277:147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boysen ST, Mukobi KL, Berntson GG (1999) Overcoming response bias using symbolic representations of number by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Anim Learn Behav 27:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bratman M (1981) Intention and means-end reasoning. Philos Rev 90:252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psych 120:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacchione T, Krist H (2004) Recognizing impossible object relations: intuitions about support in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psych 118:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Call J (2006) Descartes’ two errors: reason and reflection in the great apes. In: Hurley S, Nudds M (eds) Rational animals? Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 219–234Google Scholar
  8. Collier-Baker E, Davis JM, Suddendorf T (2004) Do dogs (Canis familiaris) understand invisible displacement? J Comp Psych 118:421–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Mendonca-Furtado O, Ottoni EB (2008) Learning generalization in problem solving by a blue-fronted parrot (Amazona aestiva). Anim Cogn 11:719–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deacon TW (1997) The symbolic species: the co-evolution of language and the brain. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond A (1990) Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural basis of the inhibitory control of reaching. In: Diamond A (ed) The development and neural bases of higher cognitive functions. New York Academy of Sciences, New York, pp 637–676Google Scholar
  12. Dickinson A (1980) Contemporary animal learning theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Erdohegyi A, Topál J, Virányi Zs, Miklósi Á (2007) Dog-logic: inferential reasoning in a two-way choice task and its restricted use. Anim Behav 74:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiset S, LeBlanc V (2007) Invisible displacement understanding in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): the role of visual cues in search behavior. Anim Cogn 10:211–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fiset S, Gagnon S, Beaulieu C (2000) Spatial encoding of hidden objects in dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psych 114:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank H (1980) Evolution of canine information processing under conditions of natural and artificial selection. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 5:389–399Google Scholar
  17. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? TRENDS Cogn Sci 9:439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauser MD, Kralik J, Botto-Mahan C (1999) Problem solving and functional design features: experiments on cotton-top tamarins, Saguinus oedipus oedipus. Anim Behav 57:565–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinrich B (1995) An experimental investigation of insight in Common Ravens (Corvus corax). Auk 112:994–1003Google Scholar
  21. Hemmer H (1990) Domestication. The decline of environmental appreciation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Herre W, Röhrs M (1973) Haustiere-Zoologisch Gesehen. Gustav Fischer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrmann E, Wobber V, Call J (2008) Great apes’ (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus) understanding of tool functional properties after limited experience. J Comp Psych 122:220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irie-Sugimoto N, Kobayashi T, Sato T, Hasegawa T (2008) Evidence of means—end behavior in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Anim Cogn 11:359–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Köhler W (1927) The mentality of apes. Vintage Books, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kralik JD, Hauser MD, Zimlicki R (2002) The relationship between problem solving and inhibitory control: cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus) performance on a reversed contingency task. J Comp Psych 116:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P, Petak I, Accorsi PA, Previde EP (2008) Does training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs’ performance (Canis familiaris) in a problem- solving task. Behav Process 78:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCall CA, Burgin SE (2002) Equine utilization of secondary reinforcement during response extinction and acquisition. Appl Anim Behav Sci 78:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miklósi Á, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miklósi Á, Polgardi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Zs, Csányi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osthaus B, Lea SEG, Slater AM (2003) Training influences problem-solving abilities in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). In: Proceedings of Annual BSAS Conference. p 103Google Scholar
  33. Osthaus B, Lea SEG, Slater AM (2005) Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 8:37–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. International University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pongrácz P, Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Gurobi K, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Social learning in dogs: the effect of a human demonstrator on the performance of dogs in a detour task. Anim Behav 62:1109–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Povinelli DJ (2000) Folk physics for apes. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Pryor K (2009) Reaching the animal mind: clicker training and what it teaches us about all animals. Scribner, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core T (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  39. Range F, Heucke SL, Gruber C, Konz A, Huber L, Zs Virányi (2009) The effect of ostensive cues on dogs’ performance in a manipulative social learning task. Appl Anim Behav Sci 120:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santos LR, Rosati A, Sproul C, Spaulding B, Hauser MD (2005) Means-means-end tool choice in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus): finding the limits on primates’ knowledge of tools. Anim Cogn 8:236–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt GF, Cook RG (2006) Mind the gap: means-end discrimination by pigeons. Anim Behav 71:599–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psych 115:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thorndike EL (1898) Animal intelligence: an experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychol Rev Monogr Suppl 2Google Scholar
  44. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (1997) Dog-human relationship affects problem solving behavior in the dog. Anthrozoos 10:214–224Google Scholar
  46. Topál J, Kubinyi E, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á (2005) Obeying social rules: a comparative study on dogs and humans. J Cult Evol Psych 3:213–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2010) What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biol Rev 85:327–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Virányi Z, Gácsi M, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Belényi B, Ujfalussy D, Miklósi Á (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves and dogs. Anim Cogn 11:373–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vlamings P, Uher J, Call J (2006) How the great apes (Pan troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan paniscus, and Gorilla gorilla) perform on the reversed contingency task: The effects of food quantity and food visibility. J Exp Psych-Anim Behav Process 32:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vonk J, Subiaul F (2009) Do chimpanzees know what others can and cannot do? Reasoning about ‘capability’. Anim Cogn 12:267–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Watson JS, Gergely G, Csanyi V, Topal J, Gacsi M, Sarkozi Z (2001) Distinguishing logic from association in the solution of an invisible displacement task by children (Homo sapiens) and dogs (Canis familiaris): Using negation of disjunction. J Comp Psych 115:219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Werdenich D, Huber L (2006) A case of quick problem solving in birds: string pulling in keas, Nestor notabilis. Anim Behav 71:855–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitt E, Douglas M, Osthaus B, Hockin I (2009) Domestic cats (Felis catus) do not show causal understanding in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 12:739–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wobber V, Hare B (2009) Testing the social dog hypothesis: are dogs also more skilled than chimpanzees in non-communicative social tasks? Behav Process 81:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wynne CDL, Udell MAR, Lord KA (2008) Ontogeny’s impact on human–dog communication. Anim Behav 76:e1–e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friederike Range
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Marleen Hentrup
    • 2
    • 4
  • Zsófia Virányi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive BiologyUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Clever Dog LabViennaAustria
  3. 3.Wolf Science CenterErnstbrunnAustria
  4. 4.Department of Behavioral BiologyUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations