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

Cooperative but Dependent-Functional Breed Selection in Dogs Influences Human-Directed Gazing in a Difficult Object-Manipulation Task

It is still largely unknown to what extent domestication, ancestry, or recent functional selection are responsible for the behavioral differences in whether dogs look back to a human when presented with a difficult task. Here, we tested whether this ubiquitous human-related response of companion dogs would appear differently in subjects that were selected for either cooperative or independent work tasks. We tested N = 71 dogs from 18 cooperative and 18 independent breeds. Subjects learned in a five-trial warming-up phase that they could easily obtain the reward from a container. In trial six, the reward became impossible to take out from the locked container. When the task was easy, both breed groups behaved similarly, and their readiness to approach the container did not differ between the last 'solvable' and the subsequent 'unsolvable' trial. Task focus, looking at the container, touching the container for the first time, or interacting with the container with a paw or nose did not differ between the breed groups, indicating that their persistence in problem solving was similar. However, in the 'unsolvable' trial, cooperative dogs alternated their gaze more often between the container and the humans than the independent dogs did. The frequency of looking back was also higher in cooperative dogs than in the independent breeds. These are the first empirical results that suggest, in a balanced, representative sample of breeds, that the selection for different levels of cooperativity in working dogs could also affect their human-dependent behavior in a generic problem-solving situation.

Beware of Strangers: Dogs' Empathetic Response to Unknown Humans

Empathy is a complex cognitive ability that has been studied in many social animals, including dogs. Previous studies have found that dogs would rescue their distressed owner more quickly than a calm owner and that dogs respond physiologically and behaviorally to the sound of crying strangers. However, no studies have explored the empathetic and emotional contagion capabilities of dogs towards strangers in rescue paradigms. In the present study, a stranger was placed behind a clear door and was told to cry (distress) or hum (neutral). The dogs' door opening, stress behaviors, tone of approach, and physiological responses were measured. Dogs did not open more frequently or more quickly for the stranger in the distressed condition compared to the neutral condition. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the behavioral or physiological indicators of stress across conditions. It was also found that non-openers were reported by owners to have more fear and, in the empathy test, were more aggressive and fearful in their tone of approach. These results suggest that dogs may be less likely to exhibit empathy-like behaviors to unknown humans in an unfamiliar environment and that owners may be necessary to moderate a dog's stress to show empathetic behaviors.

Evidence for socially influenced and potentially actively coordinated cooperation by bumblebees

Cooperation is common in animals, yet the specific mechanisms driving collaborative behaviour in different species remain unclear. We investigated the proximate mechanisms underlying the cooperative behaviour of bumblebees in two different tasks, where bees had to simultaneously push a block in an arena or a door at the end of a tunnel for access to reward. In both tasks, when their partner's entry into the arena/tunnel was delayed, bees took longer to first push the block/door compared with control bees that learned to push alone. In the tunnel task, just before gaining access to reward, bees were more likely to face towards their partner than expected by chance or compared with controls. These results show that bumblebees' cooperative behaviour is not simply a by-product of individual efforts but is socially influenced. We discuss how bees' turning behaviours, e.g. turning around before first reaching the door when their partner was delayed and turning back towards the door in response to seeing their partner heading towards the door, suggest the potential for active coordination. However, because these behaviours could also be interpreted as combined responses to social and secondary reinforcement cues, future studies are needed to help clarify whether bumblebees truly use active coordination.

Intra and interspecific audience effect on domestic dogs' behavioural displays and facial expressions

The aim of the current study was to investigate the influence of both intra- and interspecific audiences on dogs' facial expressions and behaviours. Forty-six dogs were exposed to three test conditions in which a food reward, initially available, was denied when in the presence of either a human (Human condition) or a dog audience (Dog condition), or in the absence of a visible audience (Non-social condition). Salivary cortisol was collected to evaluate the stress/arousal activation in the different conditions. Compared to the Non-social condition, the presence of a conspecific evoked more facial expressions, according to the DogFACS (Facial Action Coding System, an anatomically based tool to analyze facial expressions in domestic dogs), (EAD105-Ears downward), displacement behaviours (AD137-Nose licking, AD37-Lip wiping), tail wagging, whining, and panting (AD126). When facing a conspecific, dogs assumed a more avoidant attitude, keeping a distance and not looking at the stimuli, compared to when in the presence of the human partner. Dogs also exhibited more facial expressions (EAD102-Ears Adductor, EAD104-Ears Rotator), displacement behaviours (AD137-Nose licking, AD37-Lip wiping), panting (AD126) and whining when facing the conspecific than the human partner. Post-test cortisol was not influenced by any condition, and no association between pre-test cortisol and behavioural variables was found, thus strong differences in the levels of stress/arousal were unlikely to be responsible for differences in behavior between conditions. Considering the current results in the context of the available literature, we suggest that the higher displacement behaviors exhibited with the conspecifics were likely due to an increased level of uncertainty regarding the situations.

Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding

The historical relationship between humans and dogs has involved selective breeding for various purposes, such as hunting, guarding, and service roles. However, over time, there has been a shift in preferences from functionality to aesthetics, which has influenced the diverse sizes, shapes, and coats of dog breeds. This review looks at fashionable dog breeding and questions the ethics of prioritising looks over health and behaviour. It aims to alert potential owners, breeders, and regulators to the importance of considering a dog's overall well-being, not just its appearance, which has resulted in fad breeding, leading to genetic disorders, health issues, and a loss of biodiversity. Ethical concerns arise from breeding brachycephalic breeds with respiratory conditions, inbreeding causing inherited disorders, and overbreeding popular breeds while shelter dogs remain unadopted. Additionally, the impact of cosmetic surgeries on popular dog breeds, as well as the neglect of behavioural traits in favour of physical characteristics and strict breeding practices are also considered. The current breeding model can have a negative impact on the emotional and cognitive well-being of dogs, resulting in issues such as aggression, anxiety, and other behavioural problems that can significantly reduce their overall quality of life. Unregulated breeding practices and the demand for rare breeds can lead to illegal breeding, compromising animal welfare. Prospective owners, veterinarians, kennel clubs, and legislators all need to play a responsible role in protecting animals.

Some dogs can find the payoff-dominant outcome in the Assurance game

Studies on coordination often present animals with the choice of either cooperating or remaining inactive; however, in nature, animals may also choose to act alone. This can be modeled with the Assurance game, an economic game that has recently been used to explore decision-making in primates. We investigated whether dyads of pet dogs coordinate in the Assurance game. Pairs were presented with two alternatives: they could individually solve an apparatus baited with a low-value reward (Hare) or they could coordinate to solve a cooperative apparatus baited with a high-value reward for each dog (Stag). All individuals matched their partner's choices, but after controlling for side bias, only four out of eleven dyads consistently coordinated on the payoff-dominant strategy (Stag-Stag). Thus, some dogs are capable of finding coordinated outcomes, as do primates, at least when their partner's actions are visible and coordination results in the biggest payoff for both individuals.

Are domesticated animals dumber than their wild relatives? A comprehensive review on the domestication effects on animal cognitive performance

Animal domestication leads to diverse behavioral, physiological, and neurocognitive changes in domesticated species compared to their wild relatives. However, the widely held belief that domesticated species are inherently less "intelligent" (i.e., have lower cognitive performance) than their wild counterparts requires further investigation. To investigate potential cognitive disparities, we undertook a thorough review of 88 studies comparing the cognitive performance of domesticated and wild animals. Approximately 30% of these studies showed superior cognitive abilities in wild animals, while another 30% highlighted superior cognitive abilities in domesticated animals. The remaining 40% of studies found similar cognitive performance between the two groups. Therefore, the question regarding the presumed intelligence of wild animals and the diminished cognitive ability of domesticated animals remains unresolved. We discuss important factors/limitations for interpreting past and future research, including environmental influences, diverse objectives of domestication (such as breed development), developmental windows, and methodological issues impacting cognitive comparisons. Rather than perceiving these limitations as constraints, future researchers should embrace them as opportunities to expand our understanding of the complex relationship between domestication and animal cognition.

A cooperation experiment with white-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar)

Cooperative behaviors among individuals of numerous species play a crucial role in social interactions. There is a special interest in investigating the occurrence of cooperation among apes because this knowledge could also shed light on evolutionary processes and help us understand the origin and development of cooperation in humans and primates in general. Gibbons are phylogenetically intermediate between the great apes and monkeys, and therefore represent a unique opportunity for comparisons. The aim of the present study was to discover whether or not white-handed gibbons (Hylobates lar) show cooperative behaviors. In order to test for the respective behaviors, the gibbons were presented with a commonly used experimental cooperative rope-pulling task. The gibbons in this study did not exhibit cooperative behaviors during the problem-solving task. However, prior training procedures could not be fully completed, hence this project constitutes only the onset of exploring cooperative behaviors in gibbons. Additional behavioral observations revealed that the gibbons spent significantly more time "out of arm's reach to everyone", suggesting that they are less often involved in social interactions, than other, more cooperative primates.

Cooperation increases bottlenose dolphins' (Tursiops truncatus) social affiliation

Dolphins live in a fission-fusion society, where strong social bonds and alliances can last for decades. However, the mechanism that allows dolphins to form such strong social bonds is still unclear. Here, we hypothesized the existence of a positive feedback mechanism in which social affiliation promotes dolphins' cooperation, which in turn promotes their social affiliation. To test it, we stimulated the cooperation of the 11 dolphins studied by providing a cooperative enrichment tool based on a rope-pulling task to access a resource. Then we measured the social affiliation [simple ratio index (SRI)] of each possible pair of dolphins and evaluated whether it increased after cooperation. We also evaluated whether, before cooperation, pairs that cooperated had a higher SRI than those that did not cooperate. Our findings showed that the 11 cooperating pairs had significantly stronger social affiliation before cooperation than the 15 non-cooperating pairs. Furthermore, cooperating pairs significantly increased their social affiliation after cooperation, while non-cooperating pairs did not. As a result, our findings provide support to our hypothesis, and suggest that the previous social affiliation between dolphins facilitates cooperation, which in turn promotes their social affiliation.

Following the human point: Research with nonhuman animals since Povinelli, Nelson, and Boysen (1990)

For this special issue in honor of Dr. Sarah (Sally) Boysen's career, we review studies on point following in nonhuman animals. Of the 126 papers that we documented on this topic published since the publication of Povinelli, Nelson, and Boysen (1990, Journal of Comparative Psychology, 104, 203-210), 94 (75%) were published in the past 15 years, including 22 in the past 5 years, indicating that this topic is still an active area of interest in the field of animal behavior and cognition. We present results of a survey of publication trends, discussing the species tested and the sample sizes, and we note methodological considerations and current multilaboratory approaches. We then categorize and synthesize the research questions addressed in these studies, which have been at both the ultimate level (e.g., questions related to evolutionary adaptiveness and phylogenetic differences) and proximate level (e.g., questions related to experiential and temperamental processes). Throughout, we consider future directions for this area of research.

Dogs take into account the actions of a human partner in a cooperative task

Humans stand out for their capacity to flexibly cooperate, possibly because they understand their partners' role. Researchers have explored if such understanding is unique to humans by assessing whether non-human species wait to manipulate a cooperative apparatus until a delayed partner arrives. If animals do wait, then it is assumed that they recognize the need for a partner. However, success in these tasks may be the result of social facilitation, while failure may be due to poor inhibitory control. Moreover, this approach does not test if animals take their partners' actions into account. Here we trained dogs to press a button simultaneously with their human partner. Afterwards, we tested them in several conditions to disentangle which elements of their partner's behaviour they take into account. Dogs waited to press the button until the delayed partner arrived, the button was available to the partner and the partner acted (pressed the button). We found no relationship between inhibitory control and success. We conclude that dogs are not merely reacting to the presence of their human partners, but are also taking their actions into account when coordinating with them.

Genetic distance from wolves affects family dogs' reactions towards howls

Domestication dramatically changes behaviour, including communication, as seen in the case of dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus). We tested the hypothesis that domestication may affect an ancient, shared communication form of canids, the howling which seems to have higher individual variation in dogs: the perception and usage of howls may be affected by the genetic relatedness of the breeds to their last common ancestor with wolves ('root distance') and by other individual features like age, sex, and reproductive status. We exposed 68 purebred dogs to wolf howl playbacks and recorded their responses. We identified an interaction between root distance and age on the dogs' vocal and behavioural responses: older dogs from more ancient breeds responded longer with howls and showed more stress behaviours. Our results suggest that domestication impacts vocal behaviour significantly: disintegrating howling, a central, species-specific communication form of canids and gradually eradicating it from dogs' repertoire.

Similar behavioral but different endocrine responses to conspecific interactions in hand-raised wolves and dogs

Domestication has altered dogs' conspecific social organization compared to their closest, non-domesticated relatives, gray wolves. Wolves live in packs whose survival depends on coordinated behavior, but dogs rely less on conspecifics, which predicts greater cohesiveness in wolf than dog packs. Endocrine correlates such as oxytocin and glucocorticoids modulate group cohesion resulting in species-specific differences in social interactions. We found that although wolves' and dogs' observable behavioral reactions to a territorial threat and separation from the pack were similar, hormonal responses differed. Wolves' but not dogs' oxytocin and glucocorticoid concentrations correlated positively with territorial behaviors and only wolves showed increased glucocorticoid concentrations after separation from their pack. Together, results suggest stronger emotional activation to threats to group integrity in wolves than dogs, in line with their socio-ecology.

The current state of carnivore cognition

The field of animal cognition has advanced rapidly in the last 25 years. Through careful and creative studies of animals in captivity and in the wild, we have gained critical insights into the evolution of intelligence, the cognitive capacities of a diverse array of taxa, and the importance of ecological and social environments, as well as individual variation, in the expression of cognitive abilities. The field of animal cognition, however, is still being influenced by some historical tendencies. For example, primates and birds are still the majority of study species in the field of animal cognition. Studies of diverse taxa improve the generalizability of our results, are critical for testing evolutionary hypotheses, and open new paths for understanding cognition in species with vastly different morphologies. In this paper, we review the current state of knowledge of cognition in mammalian carnivores. We discuss the advantages of studying cognition in Carnivorans and the immense progress that has been made across many cognitive domains in both lab and field studies of carnivores. We also discuss the current constraints that are associated with studying carnivores. Finally, we explore new directions for future research in studies of carnivore cognition.

Teamwork Makes the String Work: A Pilot Test of the Loose String Task with African Crested Porcupines (Hystrix cristata)

Comparative researchers have heavily focused their studies of social cognition on species that live in large social groups, while neglecting other potential predictors of social cognition. African crested porcupines (Hystrix cristata) are relatively rare among mammals in that they are cooperative breeders that pair for life. Little is known about their social cognition, but they are good candidates for exploring cooperative behavior due to the need to coordinate behavior to cooperatively raise young. Cooperation, as defined in this study, is the process by which two or more participants perform independent actions on an object to obtain a reward for all parties. Humans are thought to outperform all other species in the frequency and magnitude of cooperative behaviors. Yet, only by studying a variety of species can researchers fully understand the likely selection pressures for cooperation, such as cooperative breeding. Here, we pilot tested the feasibility of the popular loose-string task with a mated pair of African crested porcupines, a task that required the porcupines to cooperatively pull ropes to access an out of reach platform baited with food rewards. Other species presented with this task were able to work together to receive rewards but did not always demonstrate understanding of the role of their partner. The porcupines achieved success but did not appear to coordinate their actions or solicit behavior from their partner. Thus, similar to other species, they may achieve success in this task without taking their partner’s role into account. This study demonstrates that the loose string task can be used to assess cooperation in porcupines. However, further experiments are needed to assess the porcupine’s understanding of their partner’s role under this paradigm.

Individual differences in co-representation in three monkey species (Callithrix jacchus, Sapajus apella and Macaca tonkeana) in the joint Simon task: the role of social factors and inhibitory control

Behavioral coordination is involved in many forms of primate interactions. Co-representation is the simultaneous mental representation of one’s own and the partner’s task and actions. It often underlies behavioral coordination and cooperation success. In humans, the dyadic social context can modulate co-representation. Here, we first investigated whether individual differences in co-representation in the joint Simon task in capuchin monkeys and Tonkean macaques can be explained by social factors, namely dyadic grooming and sociality index, rank difference and eigenvector centrality. These factors did not predict variation in co-representation. However, in this specific task, co-representation reduces rather than facilitates joint performance. Automatic co-representation therefore needs to be inhibited or suppressed to maximize cooperation success. We therefore also investigated whether general inhibitory control (detour-reaching) would predict co-representation in the joint Simon task in Tonkean macaques, brown capuchin and marmoset monkeys. Inhibitory control did neither explain individual differences nor species differences, since marmosets were most successful in their joint performance despite scoring lowest on inhibitory control. These results suggest that the animals’ ability to resolve conflicts between self and other representation to increase cooperation success in this task is gradually learned due to frequent exposure during shared infant care, rather than determined by strong general inhibitory control. Further, we conclude that the joint Simon task, while useful to detect co-representation non-invasively, is less suitable for identifying the factors explaining individual differences and thus a more fruitful approach to identify these factors is to design tasks in which co-representation favors, rather than hinders cooperation success.

Cooperating elephants mitigate competition until the stakes get too high

Cooperation is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom as it aims to maximize benefits through joint action. Selection, however, may also favor competitive behaviors that could violate cooperation. How animals mitigate competition is hotly debated, with particular interest in primates and little attention paid thus far to nonprimates. Using a loose-string pulling apparatus, we explored cooperative and competitive behavior, as well as mitigation of the latter, in semi-wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). Our results showed that elephants first maintained a very high cooperation rate (average = 80.8% across 45 sessions). Elephants applied “block,” “fight back,” “leave,” “move side,” and “submission” as mitigation strategies and adjusted these strategies according to their affiliation and rank difference with competition initiators. They usually applied a “fight back” mitigation strategy as a sanction when competition initiators were low ranking or when they had a close affiliation, but were submissive if the initiators were high ranking or when they were not closely affiliated. However, when the food reward was limited, the costly competitive behaviors (“monopoly” and “fight”) increased significantly, leading to a rapid breakdown in cooperation. The instability of elephant cooperation as a result of benefit reduction mirrors that of human society, suggesting that similar fundamental principles may underlie the evolution of cooperation across species.

This study shows that in a task requiring coordinated pulling, elephants compete for access to food but work to mitigate competition in order to maintain cooperation. If the cost of competition becomes too high, however, cooperation breaks down entirely. This behavior mirrors that seen in humans and other great apes, suggesting that certain cooperative mechanisms are not unique to primates.

The Indispensable Dog

Dogs' remarkable success in living in a human-dominated world rests on a set of adaptations to cohabitation with humans. In this paper, I review the nature of these adaptations. They include changes in reproductive and foraging behavior from their ancestor species, wolves, which can be understood as adaptations to the change from hunting live prey to feeding on human food residues. Dogs also show several changes in social behavior which are more controversial and even somewhat paradoxical. Contrary to theories of canine domestication which view dogs as less aggressive and more cooperative than wolves, several studies show that dogs' social interactions with conspecifics are more hierarchical and competitive than are wolves'. As scavengers rather than hunters, dogs do not need to cooperate with conspecifics the way that wolves do. But how then can we understand dogs' willingness to cooperate with humans? I propose an integrated account of dogs' social behavior that does not assume that dogs need to recognize the species-identity of the individuals with whom they interact. Because of the overlap in formal signals of dominance and submission between dog and human and people's complete control over the resources dogs need, I propose that people occupy a status of "super-dominance" over dogs. This conception suggests several new lines of research which could shed light on the human-dog relationship to the benefit of both partners.

Working Dog Training for the Twenty-First Century

Dogs are trained for a variety of working roles including assistance, protection, and detection work. Many canine working roles, in their modern iterations, were developed at the turn of the 20th century and training practices have since largely been passed down from trainer to trainer. In parallel, research in psychology has advanced our understanding of animal behavior, and specifically canine learning and cognition, over the last 20 years; however, this field has had little focus or practical impact on working dog training. The aims of this narrative review are to (1) orient the reader to key advances in animal behavior that we view as having important implications for working dog training, (2) highlight where such information is already implemented, and (3) indicate areas for future collaborative research bridging the gap between research and practice. Through a selective review of research on canine learning and behavior and training of working dogs, we hope to combine advances from scientists and practitioners to lead to better, more targeted, and functional research for working dogs.

A Pilot Study of the Effects of Human Intervention on Canine Group Movement Behavior

Dogs are the oldest domesticated animals. The process of domestication of dogs is still unclear; however, they have established themselves as human partners and are sometimes more cooperative with humans than their conspecifics. In this study, to determine the effect of affiliative human presence on group behavior in dogs, we conducted short-time trials analyzing dog group movements. There was a hierarchical relationship in which juvenile dogs were aware of adult dogs, and adult dogs were aware of human movements. We also found that the age of the juvenile dog and the characteristics of their mothers may affect the movement behavior of juvenile dogs.

Early-emerging and highly heritable sensitivity to human communication in dogs

Human cognition is believed to be unique in part because of early-emerging social skills for cooperative communication.¹ Comparative studies show that at 2.5 years old, children reason about the physical world similarly to other great apes, yet already possess cognitive skills for cooperative communication far exceeding those in our closest primate relatives.^2,3 A growing body of research indicates that domestic dogs exhibit functional similarities to human children in their sensitivity to cooperative-communicative acts. From early in development, dogs flexibly respond to diverse forms of cooperative gestures.^4,5 Like human children, dogs are sensitive to ostensive signals marking gestures as communicative, as well as contextual factors needed for inferences about these communicative acts.^6-8 However, key questions about potential biological bases for these abilities remain untested. To investigate their developmental and genetic origins, we tested 375 8-week-old dog puppies on a battery of social-cognitive measures. We hypothesized that if dogs' skills for cooperating with humans are biologically prepared, then they should emerge robustly in early development, not require extensive socialization or learning, and exhibit heritable variation. Puppies were highly skillful at using diverse human gestures, and we found no evidence that their performance required learning. Critically, over 40% of the variation in dogs' point-following abilities and attention to human faces was attributable to genetic factors. Our results suggest that these social skills in dogs emerge early in development and are under strong genetic control.

Exploring the Cognitive Capacities of Japanese Macaques in a Cooperation Game

Simple Summary

Experiments using animal models are often conducted to explore the cognitive capacities of different species and to shed light upon the evolution of behavior and the mind that shapes it. Investigating the cognitions and motivations involved in cooperation is one such area that has attracted attention in recent years. As experiments examining these abilities in natural settings are underrepresented in the literature, our study was conducted in a setting closely resembling the natural environment of the study species so as to retain the social factors that help shape these behaviors. In our experiments, Japanese macaques needed to work together to simultaneously pull two loops in order to release food rewards onto a central platform. Over the course of the experiment, the macaques in our study came to make fewer attempts at the cooperative task when no potential partner was present. Furthermore, following an unequal division of the rewards, macaques receiving lesser rewards were more likely to express stress-related and aggressive behavior. Together, these results suggest that the Japanese macaques in our study understood the importance of having a partner in the cooperative task, paid attention to the relative value of the reward they received from the task and became distressed if their reward was inferior to that of another.

Abstract

Cooperation occurs amongst individuals embedded in a social environment. Consequently, cooperative interactions involve a variety of persistent social influences such as the dynamics of partner choice and reward division. To test for the effects of such dynamics, we conducted cooperation experiments in a captive population of Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata, N = 164) using a modified version of the loose-string paradigm in an open-experiment design. We show that in addition to becoming more proficient cooperators over the course of the experiments, some of the macaques showed sensitivity to the presence of potential partners and adjusted their behavior accordingly. Furthermore, following an unequal reward division, individuals receiving a lesser reward were more likely to display aggressive and stress-related behaviors. Our experiments demonstrate that Japanese macaques have some understanding of the contingencies involved in cooperation as well as a sensitivity to the subsequent reward division suggestive of an aversion to inequity.

Evidence that bottlenose dolphins can communicate with vocal signals to solve a cooperative task

Cooperation experiments have long been used to explore the cognition underlying animals' coordination towards a shared goal. While the ability to understand the need for a partner in a cooperative task has been demonstrated in a number of species, there has been far less focus on cooperation experiments that address the role of communication. In humans, cooperative efforts can be enhanced by physical synchrony, and coordination problems can be solved using spoken language. Indeed, human children adapt to complex coordination problems by communicating with vocal signals. Here, we investigate whether bottlenose dolphins can use vocal signals to coordinate their behaviour in a cooperative button-pressing task. The two dolphin dyads used in this study were significantly more likely to cooperate successfully when they used whistles prior to pressing their buttons, with whistling leading to shorter button press intervals and more successful trials. Whistle timing was important as the dolphins were significantly more likely to succeed if they pushed their buttons together after the last whistle, rather than pushing independently of whistle production. Bottlenose dolphins are well known for cooperating extensively in the wild, and while it remains to be seen how wild dolphins use communication to coordinate cooperation, our results reveal that at least some dolphins are capable of using vocal signals to facilitate the successful execution of coordinated, cooperative actions.

Targeted helping and cooperation in zoo-living chimpanzees and bonobos

Directly comparing the prosocial behaviour of our two closest living relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, is essential to deepening our understanding of the evolution of human prosociality. We examined whether helpers of six dyads of chimpanzees and bonobos transferred tools to a conspecific. In the experiment 'Helping', transferring a tool did not benefit the helper, while in the experiment 'Cooperation', the helper only obtained a reward by transferring the correct tool. Chimpanzees did not share tools with conspecifics in either experiment, except for a mother-daughter pair, where the mother shared a tool twice in the experiment 'Helping'. By contrast, all female-female bonobo dyads sometimes transferred a tool even without benefit. When helpers received an incentive, we found consistent transfers in all female-female bonobo dyads but none in male-female dyads. Even though reaching by the bonobo receivers increased the likelihood that a transfer occurred, we found no significant species difference in whether receivers reached to obtain tools. Thus, receivers' behaviour did not explain the lack of transfers from chimpanzee helpers. This study supports the notion that bonobos might have a greater ability to understand social problems and the collaborative nature of such tasks.

Kea, Nestor notabilis, achieve cooperation in dyads, triads, and tetrads when dominants show restraint

Animal cooperation in the wild often involves multiple individuals that must tolerate each other in close proximity. However, most cooperation experiments in the lab are done with two animals, that are often also physically separated. Such experiments are useful for answering some pertinent questions, for example about the understanding of the role of the partner and strategies of partner control, but say little about factors determining successful cooperation with multiple partners in group settings. We explored the influence of dominance, rank distance, tolerance, affiliation, and coordination by testing kea parrots with a box requiring two, three, or four chains to be pulled simultaneously to access food rewards. The reward could be divided unevenly, but not monopolized completely. Eventually dyadic, triadic, and tetradic cooperation tasks were solved, showing that non-human animals are capable of tetradic cooperation in an experimental setup. Starting with two chains, we found that in a dyad monopolization of the box by the highest-ranking bird was the largest obstacle preventing successful cooperation. High-ranking birds learned to restrain themselves from monopolizing the box during a single session in which monopolization was hindered by the presence of a large number of birds. Thereafter, restraint by dominants remained the strongest factor determining success in the first trial in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic setups. The probability of success increased with the degree of restraint shown by all dominant subjects present. Previous experience with the task contributed to success in subsequent sessions, while increasing rank distance reduced success notably in the four-chain setup.

What matters for cooperation? The importance of social relationship over cognition

Cooperation is vital for the survival of many species and has been extensively researched at the ultimate level however, there is a considerable degree of variation within a given species in the extent of cooperative behaviours exhibited. Possible factors that have been discussed to contribute to this variation are the social relationship between the cooperating individuals, but also non-social factors such as inhibitory control. Investigating the performance of wolves, a highly cooperative species, in three experimental cooperative tasks; a coordination (string-pulling) task, a prosocial task and an inequity aversion task, we found that the social relationship between the partners had the largest effects on all tasks, while non-social factors (inhibition, learning speed, causal understanding and persistence) had rather unpredicted, or no effects. The results support the potential importance of relational factors, rather than motivation and cognitive abilities, in driving cooperative interactions.

Old and New Approaches to Animal Cognition: There Is Not "One Cognition"

Using the comparative approach, researchers draw inferences about the evolution of cognition. Psychologists have postulated several hypotheses to explain why certain species are cognitively more flexible than others, and these hypotheses assume that certain cognitive skills are linked together to create a generally "smart" species. However, empirical findings suggest that several animal species are highly specialized, showing exceptional skills in single cognitive domains while performing poorly in others. Although some cognitive skills may indeed overlap, we cannot a priori assume that they do across species. We argue that the term "cognition" has often been used by applying an anthropocentric viewpoint rather than a biocentric one. As a result, researchers tend to overrate cognitive skills that are human-like and assume that certain skills cluster together in other animals as they do in our own species. In this paper, we emphasize that specific physical and social environments create selection pressures that lead to the evolution of certain cognitive adaptations. Skills such as following the pointing gesture, tool-use, perspective-taking, or the ability to cooperate evolve independently from each other as a concrete result of specific selection pressures, and thus have appeared in distantly related species. Thus, there is not "one cognition". Our argument is founded upon traditional Darwinian thinking, which-although always at the forefront of biology-has sometimes been neglected in animal cognition research. In accordance with the biocentric approach, we advocate a broader empirical perspective as we are convinced that to better understand animal minds, comparative researchers should focus much more on questions and experiments that are ecologically valid. We should investigate nonhuman cognition for its own sake, not only in comparison to the human model.

Behavioral differences at scent stations between two exploited species of desert canids

Coyotes (Canis latrans) and kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis) are desert canids that share ecological similarities, but have disparate histories with anthropogenic pressure that may influence their responses towards novel stimuli. We used remote cameras to investigate response to novel stimuli for these two species. We predicted that coyotes (heavily pressured species) would be more wary towards novel stimuli on unprotected land (canid harvest activities are permitted) than in protected areas (canid harvest activities are not permitted), whereas kit foxes (less pressured species) would exhibit no difference. We examined differences in the investigative behaviors at 660 scent stations in both protected and unprotected areas. Coyotes showed no differences between protected and unprotected land and were generally more wary than kit foxes, supporting our prediction. Kit foxes were more investigative on protected land, contrary to our expectations. Our study provides evidence that anthropogenic pressure can alter the behaviors of wildlife species.

Dogs wait longer for better rewards than wolves in a delay of gratification task: but why?

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.

Cooperation with closely bonded individuals reduces cortisol levels in long-tailed macaques

Many animal species cooperate with conspecifics in various social contexts. While ultimate causes of cooperation are being studied extensively, its proximate causes, particularly endocrine mechanisms, have received comparatively little attention. Here, we present a study investigating the link between the hormone cortisol, cooperation and social bonds in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). We tested 14 macaques in a dyadic cooperation task (loose-string paradigm), each with two partners of different social bond strength and measured their salivary cortisol before and after the task. We found no strong link between the macaques' cortisol level before the task and subsequent cooperative success. By contrast, we did find that the act of cooperating in itself led to a subsequent decrease in cortisol levels, but only when cooperating with closely bonded individuals. Two control conditions showed that this effect was not due to the mere presence of such an individual or the pulling task itself. Consequently, our study shows an intricate way in which the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is involved in cooperation. Future studies should reveal whether and how our findings are driven by the anxiolytic effect of oxytocin, which has been associated with social bonding.

Familiarity with humans affect dogs' tendencies to follow human majority groups

Recently, copying others’ behaviour has attracted attention among researchers. It aids individuals in reducing uncertainty about the knowledge of the environment and helps them in acquiring an adaptive behaviour at a lower cost than by learning it by themselves. Among the copying strategies, conformity, which is the copying of behavioural decisions presented by the majority, has been well studied and reported in many animals, including humans. The previous study showed that dogs did not conform to their multiple conspecific individuals; however, dogs have evolved to increase their adaptability while living with humans, and it is plausible that dogs have selected appropriate behaviour according to the behaviour of humans. Therefore, we investigated which factors influenced the choice of dogs in a situation where they have to choose one of two numerically unbalanced human groups. The results showed that the dogs followed the human majority group under certain conditions, depending on the familiarity with the human demonstrators. These results are important in considering the significance of groups for dogs and the factors of group formation, and will also provide a clue as to how dogs have penetrated into human society.

How animals collaborate: Underlying proximate mechanisms

Collaboration or social interactions in which two or more individuals coordinate their behavior to produce outcomes from which both individuals benefit are common in nature. Individuals from many species hunt together, defend their territory, and form coalitions in intragroup competition. However, we still know very little about the proximate mechanisms underlying these behaviors. Recent theories of human cognitive evolution have emphasized the role collaboration may have played in the selection of socio-cognitive skills. It has been argued that the capacity to form shared goals and joint intentions with others, is what allows humans to collaborate so flexibly and efficiently. Although there is no evidence that nonhuman animals are capable of shared intentionality, there is conceivably a wide range of proximate mechanisms that support forms of, potentially flexible, collaboration in other species. We review the experimental literature with the aim of evaluating what we know about how other species achieve collaboration; with a particular focus on chimpanzees. We structure the review with a new categorization of collaborative behavior that focuses on whether individuals intentionally coordinate actions with others. We conclude that for a wider comparative perspective we need more data from other species but the findings so far suggest that chimpanzees, and possibly other great apes, are capable of understanding the causal role of a partner in collaboration. This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Evolutionary Roots of Cognition Psychology > Comparative Psychology.

Human Social Evolution: Self-Domestication or Self-Control?

The self-domestication hypothesis suggests that, like mammalian domesticates, humans have gone through a process of selection against aggression - a process that in the case of humans was self-induced. Here, we extend previous proposals and suggest that what underlies human social evolution is selection for socially mediated emotional control and plasticity. In the first part of the paper we highlight general features of human social evolution, which, we argue, is more similar to that of other social mammals than to that of mammalian domesticates and is therefore incompatible with the notion of human self-domestication. In the second part, we discuss the unique aspects of human evolution and propose that emotional control and social motivation in humans evolved during two major, partially overlapping stages. The first stage, which followed the emergence of mimetic communication, the beginnings of musical engagement, and mimesis-related cognition, required socially mediated emotional plasticity and was accompanied by new social emotions. The second stage followed the emergence of language, when individuals began to instruct the imagination of their interlocutors, and to rely even more extensively on emotional plasticity and culturally learned emotional control. This account further illustrates the significant differences between humans and domesticates, thus challenging the notion of human self-domestication.

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) tolerate some degree of inequity while cooperating but refuse to donate effort for nothing

In cooperative hunting, a carcass cannot be divided equally, and hunts may be unsuccessful. We studied how chimpanzees respond to these two variables, working for unequal rewards and no rewards, which have been rarely included in experimental cooperative tasks. We presented chimpanzees with a task requiring three chimpanzees to work together and varied the reward structure in two separate experiments. In Experiment 1, two individuals received more rewards than the third, making the outcome unequal. We wanted to know if cooperation would continue or break down, and what mechanisms might maintain performance. Experiment 2 used equal rewards, but this time one or more locations were left unbaited on a proportion of trials. Thus, there was a chance of individuals working to receive nothing. In Experiment 1, the chimpanzees worked at a high rate, tolerating the unequal outcomes, with rank appearing to determine who got access to the higher-value locations. However, equal outcomes (used as a control) enhanced cooperative performance, most likely through motivational processes rather than the absence of inequity aversion. In Experiment 2, performance dropped off dramatically when the chimpanzees were not rewarded on every trial. Their strategy was irrational as donating effort would have led to more rewards in the long run for each individual. Our results lead to a hierarchy of performances by condition with equity > inequity > donating effort. Chimpanzees therefore tolerate mild inequity, but cannot tolerate receiving nothing when others are rewarded.

Wolves and dogs recruit human partners in the cooperative string-pulling task

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.

Cooperation in bottlenose dolphins: bidirectional coordination in a rope-pulling task

In comparison with terrestrial animals, such as primates, there is limited empirical evidence for cooperative behavior in marine mammals under experimental conditions. In this study, we used a cooperative rope-pulling task to investigate how bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) coordinate their behavior with a partner. Dolphins successfully learned and were able to perform the task, even when one subject started after the other. In the no-delay condition (i.e., both subjects sent at the same time), one pair of dolphins showed coordinated behaviors. When pairs were successful in solving the task in the delay condition (i.e., one individual sent later than the other), the initiators (i.e., first individual sent) were likely to wait for the follower to arrive, and the follower was likely to swim faster when the initiator did not wait and started pulling the rope alone. These coordinated behaviors might help resolve the given cooperative task. Our results suggest that bottlenose dolphins learn to coordinate their behaviors via trial and error and recognize the necessity of performing simultaneous actions with a partner to successfully accomplish cooperative tasks. In addition, both partners showed behavioral changes over many trials of no-delay and delay conditions, suggesting that bidirectional coordination occurred in the cooperative task.