Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30284077›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2019

Dogs and wolves do not differ in their inhibitory control abilities in a non-social test battery.

Désirée Brucks, Sarah Marshall-Pescini, Friederike Range

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Wolves respond differently to human cues as they expand into urban landscapes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Inhibitory control tests in non-human animals: validity, reliability, and perspectives.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Development of Desirable Behaviors in Dog-Assisted Interventions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Désirée BrucksDomestication Lab, Wolf Science Center, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Savoyenstraße 1a, 1160, Vienna, Austria. desiree.brucks@me.com.
Sarah Marshall-PesciniDomestication Lab, Wolf Science Center, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Savoyenstraße 1a, 1160, Vienna, Austria.
Friederike RangeDomestication Lab, Wolf Science Center, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Savoyenstraße 1a, 1160, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

European Research Council 311870
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Being able to inhibit certain behaviours is of clear advantage in various situations. In particular, it has been suggested that inhibitory control plays a role in problem-solving and cooperation. Interspecific differences in the capacity for inhibitory control have been attributed to social and ecological factors, while one additional factor, namely domestication, has received only little attention so far. Dogs are an interesting species to test the effects of socio-ecological factors and also the influence of domestication on inhibitory control abilities. While dogs might have been selected for enhanced inhibition skills during domestication, the predictions derived from their socio-ecological background are reversed. Wolves are cooperative hunters and breeders, while dogs predominately scavenge and raise their young alone, accordingly, it would be predicted that dogs show impaired inhibitory control abilities since they no longer rely on these coordinated actions. To test these hypotheses, we assessed inhibitory control abilities in dogs and wolves raised and kept under similar conditions. Moreover, considering the problem of context-specificity in inhibitory control measures, we employed a multiple-test-approach. In line with previous studies, we found that the single inhibition tests did not correlate with each other. Using an exploratory approach, we found three components that explained the variation of behaviours across tests: motivation, flexibility, and perseveration. Interestingly, these inhibition components did not differ between dogs and wolves, which contradicts the predictions based on their socio-ecological backgrounds but also suggests that at least in tasks with minimal human influence, domestication did not affect dogs' inhibitory control abilities, thus raising questions in regard to the selection processes that might have affected inhibitory control abilities during the course of domestication.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalAnimalsBehavior, AnimalChoice BehaviorCognitionDogsFemaleMaleMotivationReversal LearningRewardWolvesDogsDomesticationInhibitory controlTest batteryWolves

Identifiers

PMID30284077
PMCPMC6326967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.