Dataset Information

Exploring Differences in Dogs' and Wolves' Preference for Risk in a Foraging Task.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Marshall-Pescini S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4993792 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring Differences in Dogs' and Wolves' Preference for Risk in a Foraging Task.

Marshall-Pescini Sarah S Besserdich Ingo I Kratz Corinna C Range Friederike F

Frontiers in psychology 20160823

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 ...[more]

PMID: 27602005

Similar Datasets

Project description:Different biological requirements between males and females may cause sex differences in decision preference when choosing between taking a risk to get a higher gain or taking a lower but sure gain. Several studies have tested this assumption in rats, however the conclusion remains controversial because the previous real-world like gambling tasks contained a learning component to track a global payoff of probabilistic outcome in addition to risk preference. Therefore, we modified a simple gambling task allowing us to exclude such learning effect, and investigated the sex difference in risk preference of rats and its neural basis. The task required water deprived rats to choose between a risky option which provided four drops of water or no reward at a 50% random chance vs. a sure option which provided predictable amount x (x = 1, 2, 3, 4). The amount and the risk were explicitly instructed so that different choice conditions could be tested trial by trial without re-learning of reward contingency. Although both sexes correctly chose the sure option with the same level of accuracy when the sure option provided the best offer (x = 4), they exhibited different choice performances when two options had the same expected value (x = 2). Males and females both preferred to take risky choices than sure choices (risk seeking), but males were more risk seeking than females. Outcome-history analysis of their choice pattern revealed that females reduced their risk preference after losing risky choices, whereas males did not. Rather, as losses continued, reaction time for subsequent risky choices got shorter in males. Given that significant sex difference features mainly emerged after negative experiences, male and female rats may evaluate an unsuccessful outcome of their decision in different manners. Furthermore, c-Fos expression in the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PV) was higher in the gambling task than for the control task in males while c-fos levels did not differ in females. The present study provides a clear evidence of sex differences in risk preference in rats and suggests that the PV is a candidate region contributing to sex differences in risky decision making.

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.

Dataset Information

Exploring Differences in Dogs' and Wolves' Preference for Risk in a Foraging Task.

Publications

Exploring Differences in Dogs' and Wolves' Preference for Risk in a Foraging Task.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets