The influence of relationships on neophobia and exploration in wolves and dogs

Wolves lead and dogs follow, but they both cooperate with humans

Due to their convergent evolution, dogs have been suggested as a good model for the evolution of human social skills, such as tolerance and cooperativeness. However, recent studies have revealed that wolves (dogs’ closest undomesticated relatives) are more tolerant and cooperative with conspecifics than dogs. It is still possible, though, that selection during domestication enhanced cooperative inclinations specifically towards humans, predicting better cooperation with humans in dogs than in wolves. We tested this hypothesis by comparing similarly human-raised wolves and dogs when cooperating with a familiar human partner in a string-pulling task. Both dogs and wolves were highly successful with the human partner, highlighting that dog-human cooperation could have evolved based on wolves’ social skills. However, wolves and dogs differed in how they cooperated with their human partners with wolves being more likely to initiate movement leading the interaction with humans, whereas dogs were more likely to wait for the human to initiate action and then follow. Accordingly, we propose that during the course of domestication, after an initial reduction in fear of humans, dogs were selected for increased submissive inclinations (Deferential Behaviour Hypothesis) in order to minimize conflicts over resources, to ensure safe co-habitation and co-working in a way that humans lead and dogs follow.

Piloting a new prosociality paradigm in dogs and wolves: The location choice task

The aim of this pilot study was to investigate whether or not dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus) show prosociality in a simple T-maze experiment based on a previous study by Hernandez-Lallement et al. (2015). Prosociality, i.e. "voluntary behaviour that benefits others", was initially thought to be uniquely human and, to trace its origin, has mainly been investigated in non-human primates. More recently however, some non-primate species showed considerable amounts of prosociality, suggesting convergent evolutionary paths. Here we tested if wolves and dogs are prosocial in a novel paradigm and, secondly, whether prosociality in dogs is a by-product of domestication or an ancestral trait shared with wolves. With the exception of one wolf, the current task did not reveal a prosocial response in either species, despite the same subjects showing prosocial tendencies in other tasks. Prosociality has been difficult to experimentally observe and it presents a methodological challenge. We are still at the beginning of this journey in Canids and this study adds another piece to the puzzle of how best to investigate this behaviour.

Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans

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.

Importance of a species' socioecology: Wolves outperform dogs in a conspecific cooperation task

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.

Patterns of predator neophobia: a meta-analytic review

Neophobia, the fear of novel stimuli, plays a major role in animal ecology. Here, we review studies on predator neophobia and explore its underlying patterns within an ecological framework. Predator neophobia is typically assessed by observing behaviours in novel areas that bring potential risk from unknown predators, or by observing behaviours towards certain kinds of objects and odours that are novel. We conducted a literature review across taxa, surveying research on baseline and induced neophobia versus controls. We calculated effect sizes for the intensity of neophobic responses, and categorized data according to six factors (taxa, age class, background type, trophic position, test cue type and experimental treatment type). While accounting for each of the other factors, we found that baseline neophobia was stronger among birds and mammals, and towards novel areas, relative to other taxa and cue types. Baseline neophobia was lower for wild-caught animals and for those that were higher in trophic position, compared with those reared in captivity and from lower trophic levels. By contrast, induced neophobia was similar in intensity across taxa, background types and testing cue types, while again being lower among upper trophic-level members and among juvenile animals. Although induced neophobia occurred across all treatment types, brain lesions induced stronger neophobia than predation risk or social isolation. We discuss potential mechanisms underlying these results and highlight gaps in the literature.

The temporal dependence of exploration on neotic style in birds

Exploration (interacting with objects to gain information) and neophobia (avoiding novelty) are considered independent traits shaped by the socio-ecology of a given species. However, in the literature it is often assumed that neophobia inhibits exploration. Here, we investigate how different approaches to novelty (fast or slow) determine the time at which exploration is likely to occur across a number of species. We presented four corvid and five parrot species with a touchscreen discrimination task in which novel stimuli were occasionally interspersed within the familiar training stimuli. We investigated the likelihood that an animal would choose novelty at different stages of its training and found evidence for a shift in the pattern of exploration, depending on neotic style. The findings suggest that faster approaching individuals explored earlier, whilst animals with long initial approach latencies showed similar amounts of exploration but did so later in training. Age rather than species might have influenced the amount of total exploration, with juveniles exploring more than adults. Neotic style varied consistently only for one species and seems to involve a strong individual component, rather than being a purely species-specific trait. This suggests that variation in behavioural phenotypes within a species may be adaptive.

Differences in greeting behaviour towards humans with varying levels of familiarity in hand-reared wolves (Canis lupus)

Socialized wolves' relationship with humans is a much debated, but important question in light of dog domestication. Earlier findings reported no attachment to the caretaker at four months of age in a Strange Situation Test, while recently attachment to the caretaker was reported at a few weeks of age in a similar paradigm. To explore wolf-human relationship, we analysed behaviours of hand reared, extensively socialized wolves towards four visitor types: foster-parents, close acquaintances, persons met once before, and complete strangers during a greeting episode. As hypothesized, in the greeting context subjects showed more intense and friendly behaviour towards foster-parents, than other visitor types, which may reflect familiarity and affinity. However, differences were more pronounced in the group situation (at six months of age) than in the individual situation (at 12 and 24 months), suggesting that unique status of foster parents may become less distinct as wolves get older, while exploration of novel social agents is expressed more with older age. Fear related behaviour patterns were only found in the individual situation, mainly displayed towards strangers. We showed that, in case of extensively socialized wolves, distinctive affiliation and affinity towards the foster parent prevails into adulthood.

The role of domestication and experience in 'looking back' towards humans in an unsolvable task

A key element thought to have changed during domestication is dogs’ propensity to communicate with humans, particularly their inclination to gaze at them. A classic test to measure this is the ‘unsolvable task’, where after repeated successes in obtaining a reward by object-manipulation, the animal is confronted with an unsolvable version of the task. ‘Looking back’ at humans has been considered an expression of dogs seeking help. While it occurs more in dogs than in socialized wolves, the level of exposure to human communication also appears to play a role. We tested similarly raised adult wolves and mixed breed dogs, pet dogs and free-ranging dogs. Unlike previous studies, as well as species and levels of socialization, we included ‘persistence’ in trying to solve the task as a potential explanatory factor. Wolves were more persistent than all dog groups. Regardless of socialization or species, less persistent animals looked back sooner and longer. Free-ranging dogs, despite little exposure to dog-human communication, behaved similarly to other dogs. Together, results suggest that basic wolf-dog differences in motivation and exploration may override differences in human-directed behaviour when animals are equally socialized, and that once the human is considered a social partner, looking behaviour occurs easily.

Motivational Factors Underlying Problem Solving: Comparing Wolf and Dog Puppies' Explorative and Neophobic Behaviors at 5, 6, and 8 Weeks of Age

Background: Wolves have been shown to be better in independent problem-solving tasks than dogs, however it is unclear whether cognitive or motivational factors underlie such differences. In a number of species problem solving has been linked to both persistence in exploration and neophobia, suggesting both these aspects may underlie dog-wolf differences in problem solving. Indeed adult wolves have been shown to be more likely to approach a novel object and more persistent in their investigation of it, but also slower in making contact with it and more fearful of it than dogs. Methods: In the current study we investigated potential differences in equally-raised dogs' and wolves' explorative and neophobic behaviors in a novel environment and with novel objects at 5, 6, and 8 weeks of age. Results: Results showed that wolves were more persistent in exploring both the environment and the objects than dogs, and this was the case at all ages. There were no differences in the frequency of fear-related behaviors and time spent in proximity to humans. Stress-related behaviors were similarly expressed at 5 and 6 weeks, although wolves showed a higher frequency of such behaviors at 8 weeks. Discussion: Overall, results with puppies confirm those with adult animals: wolves appear to be more explorative than dogs. Such motivational differences need to be taken into account when comparing dogs and wolves in cognitive tasks.

Effects of Long-Term Exposure to an Electronic Containment System on the Behaviour and Welfare of Domestic Cats

Free-roaming cats are exposed to a variety of risks, including involvement in road traffic accidents. One way of mitigating these risks is to contain cats, for example using an electronic boundary fence system that delivers an electric ‘correction’ via a collar if a cat ignores a warning cue and attempts to cross the boundary. However, concerns have been expressed over the welfare impact of such systems. Our aim was to determine if long-term exposure to an electronic containment system was associated with reduced cat welfare. We compared 46 owned domestic cats: 23 cats that had been contained by an electronic containment system for more than 12 months (AF group); and 23 cats with no containment system that were able to roam more widely (C group). We assessed the cats’ behavioural responses and welfare via four behavioural tests (unfamiliar person test; novel object test; sudden noise test; cognitive bias test) and an owner questionnaire. In the unfamiliar person test, C group lip-licked more than the AF group, whilst the AF group looked at, explored and interacted more with the unfamiliar person than C group. In the novel object test, the AF group looked at and explored the object more than C group. No significant differences were found between AF and C groups for the sudden noise or cognitive bias tests. Regarding the questionnaire, C group owners thought their cats showed more irritable behaviour and AF owners thought that their cats toileted inappropriately more often than C owners. Overall, AF cats were less neophobic than C cats and there was no evidence of significant differences between the populations in general affective state. These findings indicate that an electronic boundary fence with clear pre-warning cues does not impair the long term quality of life of cats.