Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32395114›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

The Effect of Domestication and Experience on the Social Interaction of Dogs and Wolves With a Human Companion.

Martina Lazzaroni, Friederike Range, Jessica Backes, Katrin Portele, Katharina Scheck, Sarah Marshall-Pescini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Why do dogs wag their tails?Biology letters · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Rats respond to aversive emotional arousal of human handlers with the activation of the basolateral and central amygdala.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Martina LazzaroniDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Friederike RangeDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Jessica BackesComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Katrin PorteleComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Katharina ScheckComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Sarah Marshall-PesciniDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF W 1262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The results of current wolf-dog studies on human-directed behaviors seem to suggest that domestication has acted on dogs' general attitudes and not on specific socio-cognitive skills. A recent hypothesis suggests that domestication may have increased dogs' overall sociability (hypersociability hypothesis). The aim of the present study was to test one aspect of the hypersociability hypothesis, whereby dogs should be more interested in social human contact compared to wolves, and to investigate the relative roles of both domestication and experience on the value that dogs attribute to human social contact. We compared equally raised wolves and dogs kept at the Wolf Science Center (WSCw, WSCd) but also dogs with different human socialization experiences i.e., pet dogs and free-ranging dogs. We presented subjects with a simple test, divided in two phases: in the Pre-test phase animals were exposed to two people in succession. One person invited the animal for a social/cuddle session (contact provider) and the other fed the animal (food provider). In the Test phase, animals could choose which of the two persons to approach, when both stood in a neutral posture. We directly compared WSCd with WSCw and free-ranging dogs with pet dogs. We found that in the Pre-test, WSCd and free-ranging dogs spent more time with the contact provider than WSCw and pet dogs, respectively. The results regarding the free-ranging dog and pet dog comparison were surprising, hence we conducted a follow-up testing pet dogs in a familiar, distraction-free area. Free-ranging dogs and this group of pet dogs did not differ in the time spent cuddling. In the test phase, WSCd were more likely than WSCw to approach the two experimenters. However, neither for the WSCd-WSCw comparison nor for the free-ranging dogs-pet dogs comparison, we could find a clear preference for one person over the other. Our findings support the idea that domestication has affected dogs' behavior in terms of their overall interest in being in proximity with a human partner also in case of dogs with a relatively sparse socialization experience (free-ranging dogs). However, it remains unclear what the driving motivation to interact with the human may be.

Indexed as

choice taskdomesticationfree-ranging dogshypersociabilitywolves

Identifiers

PMID32395114
PMCPMC7197371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.