Advertisement

A wolfdog point of view on the impossible task paradigm

  • Andrea SommeseEmail author
  • Kamila Nováková
  • Naděžda Fiala Šebková
  • Luděk Bartoš
Original Paper

Abstract

To elucidate the role of domestication, we used the impossible task paradigm to test Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs with a known proportion of ‘wolfblood’ in their DNA and, as a control group for our subjects, we used German shepherd dogs. We hypothesized that the difference between wolves and domestic dogs is based on genetics and modified by obedience; if so, the looking back performance of the subject should be linked to its proportion of wolf-genes. To prove that, we observed 73 Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs, and 27 German shepherd dogs, and analysed their human-directed gazing behaviour during our test. Our apparatus consisted of a glass container placed upside down over a small amount of food. The test proceeded with three solvable trials, in which the subject could obtain the food by manipulating the container, followed by an unsolvable one in which the container was fixed onto the board. Our results suggest that there is no significant correlation between the probability of looking back in Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs and their proportion of ‘wolf blood’. However, the probability of looking back was higher in German Shepherd dogs than in Czechoslovakian Wolfdogs (odds ratio = 9.1). German Shepherd dogs showed not only a higher frequency of looking back, but also the duration of their looks was longer.

Keywords

Czechoslovakian wolfdogs German shepherd dogs Impossible task Looking back Domestication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic (MZE-RO0718). We would like to thank the dog owners because without their support this work would not be possible. A special thanks goes to Prof. Emanuela Prato-Previde for her great help and involvement in this paper. We also thank Sonia Lenardon and Jan Palatý for their editing and suggestions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

All procedures involving animals were approved with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Animals of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. The protocol was approved by the Czech Central Committee for Protection of Animals (Permit number: MŠMT 26663/2010-30, 7/2010). The legal requirements of the Czech Republic must be approved by the Central Commission for Animal Welfare (Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic) and by the Commission for Animal Welfare of the Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. The experiment did not require any specific arrangement, because it was based on a contactless observation of the dogs carried by their owners.

References

  1. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food location that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alterisio A, Baragli P, Aria M, D’Aniello B, Scandurra A (2018) Could the visual differential attention be a referential gesture? A study on horses (Equus caballus) on the impossible task paradigm. Animals 8:120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrera G, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2011) Communication between domestic dogs and humans: effects of shelter housing upon the gaze to the human. Anim Cogn 14:727–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bensky MK, Gosling SD, Sinn DL (2013) The world from a dog’s point of view: a review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Adv Study Behav 45(45):209–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentosela M, Barrera G, Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca AE (2008) Effect of reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Behav Proc 78:464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caniglia R, Fabbri E, Hulva P, Bolfikova BC, Jindrichova M, Stronen AV, Dykyy I, Camatta A, Carnier P, Randi E, Galaverni M (2018) Wolf outside, dog inside? The genomic make-up of the Czechoslovakian wolfdog. BMC Genom 19:533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cilova D, Vejl P, Sebkova N, Castkova M, Jurkovicova P, Kadlecová V (2011) Microsatellite analysis of X and Y gonosome variability in the Czechoslovakian and Saarloos wolfdog breeds. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res 6:60–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cunningham CL, Ramos MF (2014) Effect of training and familiarity on responsiveness to human cues in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 17:805–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Aniello B, Alterisio A, Scandurra A, Petremolo E, Iommelli MR, Aria M (2017) What’s the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures. Anim Cogn 20:777–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Aniello B, Scandurra A (2016) Ontogenetic effects on gazing behaviour: a case study of kennel dogs (Labrador Retrievers) in the impossible task paradigm. Anim Cogn 19:565–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Aniello B, Scandurra A, Prato-Previde E, Valsecchi P (2015) Gazing toward humans: a study on water rescue dogs using the impossible task paradigm. Behav Proc 110:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dorey NR, Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2010) When do domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, start to understand human pointing? The role of ontogeny in the development of interspecies communication. Anim Behav 79:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frank H, Frank MG (1982) Comparison of problem-solving performance in six-week-old wolves and dogs. Anim Behav 30:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frank H, Frank MG (1985) Comparative manipulation test performance in 10-week-old wolves (Canis lupus) and alaskan malamutes (Canis familiaris)—a piagetian interpretation. J Comp Psychol 99:266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank H, Frank MG, Hasselbach LM, Littleton DM (1989) Motivation and insight in wolf (Canis lupus) and alaskan malamute (Canis familiaris)—visual-discrimination learning. Bull Psychonomic Soc 27:455–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frantz LAF, Mullin VE, Pionnier-Capitan M, Lebrasseur O, Ollivier M, Perri A, Linderholm A, Mattiangeli V, Teasdale MD, Dimopoulos EA, Tresset A, Duffraisse M, McCormick F, Bartosiewicz L, Gal E, Nyerges EA, Sablin MV, Brehard S, Mashkour M, Balasescu A, Gillet B, Hughes S, Chassaing O, Hitte C, Vigne JD, Dobney K, Hanni C, Bradley DG, Larson G (2016) Genomic and archaeological evidence suggests a dual origin of domestic dogs. Science 352:1228–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freedman AH, Wayne RK (2017) Deciphering the origin of dogs: from fossils to genomes. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 5(5):281–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gacsi M, Gyori B, Viranyi Z, Kubinyi E, Range F, Belenyi B, Miklosi A (2009a) Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006584 Google Scholar
  19. Gacsi M, Kara E, Belenyi B, Topal J, Miklosi A (2009b) The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs. Anim Cogn 12:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaunet F (2008) How do guide dogs of blind owners and pet dogs of sighted owners (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Anim Cogn 11:475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaunet F, Deputte BL (2011) Functionally referential and intentional communication in the domestic dog: effects of spatial and social contexts. Anim Cogn 14:849–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gómez JC (1996) Non-human primate theories of (non-human primate) minds: some issues concerning the origins of mind-reading. Theor Theor Mind 330:1.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597985.020 Google Scholar
  23. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cognit Sci 9:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evol Commun 2:137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hare B, Plyusnina I, Ignacio N, Schepina O, Stepika A, Wrangham R, Trut L (2005) Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Curr Biol 15:226–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hare B, Rosati A, Kaminski J, Brauer J, Call J, Tomasello M et al (2010) The domestication hypothesis for dogs’ skills with human communication: a response to Udell, (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008). Anim Behav 79:E1–E6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heberlein MTE, Turner DC, Range F, Viranyi Z (2016) A comparison between wolves, Canis lupus, and dogs, Canis familiaris, in showing behaviour towards humans. Anim Behav 122:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hiestand L (2011) A comparison of problem-solving and spatial orientation in the wolf (Canis lupus) and dog (Canis familiaris). Behav Genet 41:840–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hori Y, Kishi H, Inoue-Murayama M, Fujita K (2013) Dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) is associated with gazing toward humans in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Open J Anim Sci 3:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Horn L, Viranyi Z, Miklosi A, Huber L, Range F (2012) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) flexibly adjust their human-directed behavior to the actions of their human partners in a problem situation. Anim Cogn 15:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horn L, Huber L, Range F (2013) The importance of the secure base effect for domestic dogs—evidence from a manipulative problem-solving task. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065296 Google Scholar
  33. Jakovcevic A, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2012) Do more sociable dogs gaze longer to the human face than less sociable ones? Behav Proc 90:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaminski J, Nitzschner M (2013) Do dogs get the point? A review of dog-human communication ability. Learn Motiv 44:294–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kiernan K, Tao J, Gibbs P (2012) Tips and strategies for mixed modeling with SAS/STAT® procedures. In: Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum, pp. 332–2012Google Scholar
  36. Konno A, Romero T, Inoue-Murayama M, Saito A, Hasegawa T (2016) Dog breed differences in visual communication with humans. PLoS One 11Google Scholar
  37. Kubinyi E, Viranyi Z, Miklósi Á (2007) Comparative social cognition: from wolf and dog to humans. Comp Cognit Behav Rev 2:26–46Google Scholar
  38. Lazarowski L, Dorman DC (2015) A comparison of pet and purpose-bred research dog (Canis familiaris) performance on human-guided object-choice tasks. Behav Proc 110:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malavasi R, Huber L (2016) Evidence of heterospecific referential communication from domestic horses (Equus caballus) to humans. Anim Cogn 19:899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 Proc 78:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Barnard S, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2009) Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs’ behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behav Proc 81:416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marshall-Pescini S, Colombo E, Passalacqua C, Merola I, Prato-Previde E (2013) Gaze alternation in dogs and toddlers in an unsolvable task: evidence of an audience effect. Anim Cogn 16:933–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marshall-Pescini S, Viranyi Z, Range F (2015) The effect of domestication on inhibitory control: wolves and dogs compared. PLoS One 10:e0118469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marshall-Pescini S, Rao A, Virai Z, Range F (2017) The role of domestication and experience in ‘looking back’ towards humans in an unsolvable task. Sci Rep 7:46636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merola I, Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S (2012) Social referencing in dog-owner dyads? Anim Cogn 15:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Merola I, Marshall-Pescini S, D’Aniello B, Prato-Previde E (2013) Social referencing: water rescue trained dogs are less affected than pet dogs by the stranger’s message. Appl Anim Behav Sci 147:132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miklosi A, Kubinyi E, Topal J, Gacsi M, Viranyi Z, Csanyi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miklosi A, Pongracz N, Lakatos G, Topal J, Csanyi V (2005) A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. J Comp Psychol 119:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nawroth C, Brett JM, McElligott AG (2016) Goats display audience-dependent human-directed gazing behaviour in a problem-solving task. Biol Lett 12:20160283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parker HG, Kim LV, Sutter NB, Carlson S, Lorentzen TD, Malek TB, Johnson GS, DeFrance HB, Ostrander EA, Kruglyak L (2004) Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Science 304:1160–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Passalacqua C, Marshall-Pescini S, Barnard S, Lakatos G, Valsecchi P, Previde EP (2011) Human-directed gazing behaviour in puppies and adult dogs, Canis lupus familiaris. Anim Behav 82:1043–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Persson M, Roth L, Johnsson M, Wright D, Jensen P (2015) Human-directed social behaviour in dogs shows significant heritability. Genes Brain Behav 14:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pongracz M, Miklosi A, Vida V, Csanyi V (2005) The pet dogs ability for learning from a human demonstrator in a detour task is independent from the breed and age. Appl Anim Behav Sci 90:309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S (2014) Social looking in the domestic dog. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog cognition and behavior. The scientific study of Canis familiaris. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  57. Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P (2008) Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Anim Cogn 11:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Range F, Viranyi Z (2011) Development of Gaze Following Abilities in Wolves (Canis Lupus). PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016888 Google Scholar
  59. Range F, Viranyi Z (2013) Social learning from humans or conspecifics: differences and similarities between wolves and dogs. Front Psychol 4:868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Range F, Viranyi Z (2015) Tracking the evolutionary origins of dog–human cooperation: the “Canine Cooperation Hypothesis”. Front Psychol 5:1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Range F, Horn L, Bugnyar T, Gajdon GK, Huber L (2009) Social attention in keas, dogs, and human children. Anim Cogn 12:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Range F, Hentrup M, Viranyi Z (2011) Dogs are able to solve a means-end task. Anim Cogn 14:575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rao A, Bernasconi L, Lazzaroni M, Marshall-Pescini S, Range F (2018) Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans. PeerJ 6:e5944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reid PJ (2009) Adapting to the human world: dogs’ responsiveness to our social cues. Behav Proc 80:325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Anim Behav 75:1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Scandurra A, Prato-Previde E, Valsecchi P, Aria M, D’Aniello B (2015) Guide dogs as a model for investigating the effect of life experience and training on gazing behaviour. Anim Cogn 18:937–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Scandurra A, Mongillo P, Marinelli L, Aria M, D’Aniello B (2016) Conspecific observational learning by adult dogs in a training context. Appl Anim Behav Sci 174:116–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smetanova M, Bolfikova BC, Randi E, Caniglia R, Fabbri E, Galaverni M, Kutal M, Hulva P (2015) From wolves to dogs, and back: genetic composition of the Czechoslovakian wolfdog. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143807 Google Scholar
  69. Smith BP, Litchfield CA (2010a) Dingoes (Canis dingo) can use human social cues to locate hidden food. Anim Cogn 13:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith BP, Litchfield CA (2010b) How well do dingoes, Canis dingo, perform on the detour task? Anim Behav 80:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith BP, Litchfield CA (2013) Looking back at ‘looking back’: operationalising referential gaze for dingoes in an unsolvable task. Anim Cogn 16:961–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG (2012) Categorical data analysis using SAS. SAS institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  73. Talenti A, Dreger DL, Frattini S, Polli M, Marelli S, Harris AC, Liotta L, Cocco R, Hogan AN, Bigi D (2018) Studies of modern Italian dog populations reveal multiple patterns for domestic breed evolution. Ecol Evol 8:2911–2925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Topal J, Miklosi A, Csanyi V (1997) Dog–human relationship affects problem solving behavior in the dog. Anthrozoos 10:214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Udell MAR (2015) When dogs look back: inhibition of independent problem-solving behaviour in domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) compared with wolves (Canis lupus). Biol Lett 11:20150489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2008) A review of domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. J Exp Anal Behav 89:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76:1767–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2010) What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biol Rev 85:327–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2011) Can your dog read your mind? Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking. Learn Behav 39:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Udell MA, Spencer JM, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2012) Human-socialized wolves follow diverse human gestures and they may not be alone. Int J Comp Psychol 25:97–117Google Scholar
  81. Viranyi Z, Gacsi M, Kubinyi E, Topal J, Belenyi B, Ujfalussy D, Miklosi A (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 11:373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Werhahn G, Viranyi Z, Barrera G, Sommese A, Range F (2016) Wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) differ in following human gaze into distant space but respond similar to their packmates’ gaze. J Comp Psychol 130:288–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wobber V, Hare B, Koler-Matznick J, Wrangham R, Tomasello M (2009) Breed differences in domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) comprehension of human communicative signals. Interact Stud 10:206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EthologyInstitute of Animal SciencePraha-UhříněvesCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Ethology and Companion Animal ScienceCzech University of Life Sciences PraguePraha 6-SuchdolCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations