Wolves, but not dogs, are prosocial in a touch screen task.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dale R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6493736 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Wolves, but not dogs, are prosocial in a touch screen task.
Dale Rachel R Palma-Jacinto Sylvain S Marshall-Pescini Sarah S Range Friederike F
PloS one 20190501 5
Prosociality is important for initiating cooperation. Interestingly, while wolves rely heavily on cooperation, dogs' do so substantially less thus leading to the prediction that wolves are more prosocial than dogs. However, domestication hypotheses suggest dogs have been selected for higher cooperation, leading to the opposing prediction- increased prosocial tendencies in dogs. To tease apart these hypotheses we adapted a paradigm previously used with pet dogs to directly compare dogs and wolves ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Humans help others even without direct benefit for themselves. However, the nature of altruistic (i.e., only the other benefits) and prosocial (i.e., self and other both benefit) behaviors in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, remains controversial. To address this further, we developed a touch-screen-guided task that allowed us to increase the number of trials for a thorough test of chimpanzees' prosocial and altruistic tendencies. Mother-offspring dyads were tested in the same compartment; one was the actor while the other was the recipient. In Experiment 1, the actor chose among three options: prosocial, selfish (only the actor benefited) and altruistic. To better understand the nature of the chimpanzees' choices and to improve experimental control, we conducted two additional experiments. Experiment 2 consisted of two-option choices interspersed with three-option choices, and in Experiment 3 the two-option choice were blocked across all trials. The results of Experiment 1 clearly showed that chimpanzees acted prosocially in the touch-screen-guided task, choosing the prosocial option on an average of 79% of choices. Five out of the six chimpanzees showed the preference to act prosocially against chance level. The preference for the prosocial option persisted when conditions were changed in Experiments 2 and 3. When only selfish and altruistic options were available in Experiments 2 and 3, chimpanzees preferred the selfish option. These results suggest that (1) most individuals understood the nature of the task and modified their behavior according to the available options, (2) five out of the six chimpanzees chose to act prosocially when they had the option to, and (3) offspring counterbalanced between altruistic and selfish, when given those two options perhaps to avoid suffering repercussions from the mother.
| S-EPMC6074756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Both human and non-humans species face decisions in their daily lives which may entail taking risks. At the individual level, a propensity for risk-taking has been shown to be positively correlated with explorative tendencies, whereas, at the species level a more variable and less stable feeding ecology has been associated with a greater preference for risky choices. In the current study we compared two closely related species; wolves and dogs, which differ significantly in their feeding ecology and their explorative tendencies. Wolves depend on hunting for survival with a success rate of between 15 and 50%, whereas free-ranging dogs (which make up 80% of the world dog population), are largely scavengers specialized on human produce (i.e., a more geographically and temporally stable resource). Here, we used a foraging paradigm, which allowed subjects to choose between a guaranteed less preferred food vs. a more preferred food, which was however, delivered only 50% of the time (a stone being delivered the rest of time). We compared identically raised adult wolves and dogs and found that in line with the differing feeding ecologies of the two species and their explorative tendencies, wolves were more risk prone than dogs.
| S-EPMC4993792 | biostudies-other
Project description:In comparison to non-human animals, humans are highly flexible in cooperative tasks, which may be a result of their ability to understand a partner's role in such interactions. Here, we tested if wolves and dogs could flexibly adjust their behaviour according to whether they needed a partner to solve a cooperative loose string-pulling paradigm. First, we presented animals with a delay condition where a human partner was released after the subject so that the animal had to delay pulling the string to enable coordinated pulling with the human partner. Subsequently, we investigated whether subjects would recruit a partner depending on whether they could operate the apparatus alone, or help from a partner was required. Both wolves and dogs successfully waited in the delay condition in 88% of the trials. Experimental subjects were also successful in recruiting a partner, which occurred significantly more often in the cooperation trials than in the solo pulling condition. No species differences were found in either experiment. These results suggest that both wolves and dogs have some understanding of whether a social partner is needed to accomplish a task, which enables behavioural coordination and cooperation.
| S-EPMC6879616 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A number of domestication hypotheses suggest that dogs have acquired a more tolerant temperament than wolves, promoting cooperative interactions with humans and conspecifics. This selection process has been proposed to resemble the one responsible for our own greater cooperative inclinations in comparison with our closest living relatives. However, the socioecology of wolves and dogs, with the former relying more heavily on cooperative activities, predicts that at least with conspecifics, wolves should cooperate better than dogs. Here we tested similarly raised wolves and dogs in a cooperative string-pulling task with conspecifics and found that wolves outperformed dogs, despite comparable levels of interest in the task. Whereas wolves coordinated their actions so as to simultaneously pull the rope ends, leading to success, dogs pulled the ropes in alternate moments, thereby never succeeding. Indeed in dog dyads it was also less likely that both members simultaneously engaged in other manipulative behaviors on the apparatus. Different conflict-management strategies are likely responsible for these results, with dogs' avoidance of potential competition over the apparatus constraining their capacity to coordinate actions. Wolves, in contrast, did not hesitate to manipulate the ropes simultaneously, and once cooperation was initiated, rapidly learned to coordinate in more complex conditions as well. Social dynamics (rank and affiliation) played a key role in success rates. Results call those domestication hypotheses that suggest dogs evolved greater cooperative inclinations into question, and rather support the idea that dogs' and wolves' different social ecologies played a role in affecting their capacity for conspecific cooperation and communication.
| S-EPMC5676910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although theories of domestication have suggested that dogs evolved a greater capacity for tolerant and cooperative behaviour compared to their wild wolf cousins, the differences between wolves' and free-ranging dogs' social ecology, with wolves relying more on conspecific cooperation than dogs, would rather predict the opposite. In a cooperative task involving joint action on a rope to pull a tray forward, wolves systematically outperformed dogs. The dogs' failure appeared largely due to tolerance issues, i.e. one partner avoiding interacting with the apparatus, when the other was engaged with it, rather than cognitive limitations. To verify this, in the current study we trained the dominant partner to become an 'expert' on the task thereby potentially enhancing their understanding that they 'needed the partner to succeed'. Indeed both the duration of co-action on the apparatus and the success rate of dyads composed of an expert and an inexperienced dog was higher than dyads composed of two inexperienced partners. Nevertheless the dogs' performance was substantially poorer than that of wolf dyads with equivalent experience, highlighting that despite the facilitating effect of the 'expert', cooperation on this task did not come easily to dogs. For both dogs and wolves, cooperation was facilitated by the closeness of the affiliative bond between individuals, but opposite rank effects emerged. Dogs further apart in rank were more successful co-operators, whereas in wolves, animals closer in rank had a higher cooperative success. The results further highlight the importance of the different socio-ecologies of wolves and dogs in understanding their behaviour.
| S-EPMC6207655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prosociality has received increasing interest by non-human animal researchers since the initial discoveries that suggested it is not a uniquely human trait. However, thus far studies, even within the same species, have not garnered conclusive results. A prominent suggestion for this disparity is the effect methodology can have on prosocial responses in animals. We recently found evidence of prosociality in domestic dogs towards familiar conspecifics using a bar-pulling paradigm, in which a subject could pull a rope to deliver food to its partner. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess whether dogs would show a similar response in a different paradigm, based on the token exchange task paradigm frequently used with primates. In this task, dogs had the option to touch a token with their nose that delivered a reward to an adjacent receiver enclosure, which contained a familiar conspecific, a stranger or no dog at all. Crucially, we also included a social facilitation control condition, whereby the partner (stranger/familiar) was present but unable to access the food. We found that the familiarity effect remained consistent across tasks, with dogs of both the bar-pulling and token choice experiments providing more food to familiar partners than in a non-social control and providing less food to stranger partners than this same control. However, in contrast to our previous bar-pulling experiment, we could not exclude social facilitation as an underlying motive in the current task. We propose this difference in results between tasks may be related to increased task complexity in the token choice paradigm, making it harder for dogs to discriminate between the test and social facilitation conditions. Overall our findings suggest that subtle methodological changes can have an impact on prosocial behaviours in dogs and highlights the importance of controlling for social facilitation effects in such experiments.
| S-EPMC5176280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Self-control has been shown to be linked with being cooperative and successful in humans and with the g-factor in chimpanzees. As such, it is likely to play an important role in all forms of problem-solving. Self-control, however, does not just vary across individuals but seems also to be dependent on the ecological niche of the respective species. With dogs having been selected to live in the human environment, several domestication hypotheses have predicted that dogs are better at self-control and thus more tolerant of longer delays than wolves. Here we set out to test this prediction by comparing dogs' and wolves' self-control abilities using a delay of gratification task where the animals had to wait for a predefined delay duration to exchange a low-quality reward for a high-quality reward. We found that in our task, dogs outperformed the wolves waiting an average of 66 s vs. 24 s in the wolves. Food quality did not influence how long the animals waited for the better reward. However, dogs performed overall better in motivation trials than the wolves, although the dogs' performance in those trials was dependent on the duration of the delays in the test trials, whereas this was not the case for the wolves. Overall, the data suggest that selection by humans for traits influencing self-control rather than ecological factors might drive self-control abilities in wolves and dogs. However, several other factors might contribute or explain the observed differences including the presence of the humans, which might have inhibited the dogs more than the wolves, lower motivation of the wolves compared to the dogs to participate in the task and/or wolves having a better understanding of the task contingencies. These possible explanations need further exploration.
| S-EPMC7181554 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite being closely related, dogs perform worse than wolves in independent problem-solving tasks. These differences in problem-solving performance have been attributed to dogs' greater reliance on humans, who are usually present when problem-solving tasks are presented. However, more fundamental motivational factors or behavioural traits such as persistence, motor diversity and neophobia may also be responsible for differences in task performance. Hence, to better understand what drives the differences between dogs' and wolves' problem-solving performance, it is essential to test them in the absence of humans. Here, we tested equally raised and kept dogs and wolves with two unsolvable tasks, a commonly used paradigm to study problem-solving behaviour in these species. Differently from previous studies, we ensured no humans were present in the testing situation. We also ensured that the task was unsolvable from the start, which eliminated the possibility that specific manipulative behaviours were reinforced. This allowed us to measure both persistence and motor diversity more accurately. In line with previous studies, we found wolves to be more persistent than dogs. We also found motor diversity to be linked to persistence and persistence to be linked to contact latency. Finally, subjects were consistent in their performance between the two tasks. These results suggest that fundamental differences in motivation to interact with objects drive the differences in the performance of dogs and wolves in problem-solving tasks. Since correlates of problem-solving success, that is persistence, neophobia, and motor diversity are influenced by a species' ecology, our results support the socioecological hypothesis, which postulates that the different ecological niches of the two species (dogs have evolved to primarily be scavengers and thrive on and around human refuse, while wolves have evolved to primarily be group hunters and have a low hunting success rate) have, at least partly, shaped their behaviours.
| S-EPMC6266929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ability to help and care for others fosters social cohesiveness and is vital to the physical and emotional well-being of social species, including humans1-3. Affiliative social touch, such as allogrooming (grooming behaviour directed towards another individual), is a major type of prosocial behaviour that provides comfort to others1-6. Affiliative touch serves to establish and strengthen social bonds between animals and can help to console distressed conspecifics. However, the neural circuits that promote prosocial affiliative touch have remained unclear. Here we show that mice exhibit affiliative allogrooming behaviour towards distressed partners, providing a consoling effect. The increase in allogrooming occurs in response to different types of stressors and can be elicited by olfactory cues from distressed individuals. Using microendoscopic calcium imaging, we find that neural activity in the medial amygdala (MeA) responds differentially to naive and distressed conspecifics and encodes allogrooming behaviour. Through intersectional functional manipulations, we establish a direct causal role of the MeA in controlling affiliative allogrooming and identify a select, tachykinin-expressing subpopulation of MeA GABAergic (γ-aminobutyric-acid-expressing) neurons that promote this behaviour through their projections to the medial preoptic area. Together, our study demonstrates that mice display prosocial comforting behaviour and reveals a neural circuit mechanism that underlies the encoding and control of affiliative touch during prosocial interactions.
| S-EPMC8605624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cognitive flexibility is the ability to rapidly adapt to a constantly changing environment. It is impaired by aging as well as in various neurological diseases, including dementia and mild cognitive impairment. In rodents, although many behavioral test protocols have been reported to assess learning and memory dysfunction, few protocols address cognitive flexibility. In this study, we developed a novel cognitive flexibility test protocol using touch screen operant system. This test comprises a behavioral sequencing task, in which mice are required to discriminate between the "rewarded" and "never-rewarded" spots and shuttle between the two distantly positioned rewarded spots, and serial reversals, in which the diagonal spatial patterns of rewarded and never-rewarded spots were reversely changed repetitively. Using this test protocol, we demonstrated that dysbiosis treated using streptomycin induces a decline in cognitive flexibility, including perseveration and persistence. The relative abundances of Firmicutes and Bacteroides were lower and higher, respectively, in the streptomycin-treated mice with less cognitive flexibility than in the control mice. This is the first report to directly show that intestinal microbiota affects cognitive flexibility.
| S-EPMC9259885 | biostudies-literature