ReviewFrontiers in psychology2021
The Indispensable Dog.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deference or sociability? Insights from dogs' and wolves' human-directed behavior in a food-conflict task.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- After all, how valuable is the dog model for examining human socio-cognitive abilities?Biologia futura · 2025Review
- A functionalist approach to social status in social animals, humans and the dog-human community. The prestige-based social system hypothesis.Biologia futura · 2025Review
- Combining α-s1 Casozepine and Fluoxetine Treatment with a Behavioral Therapy Improves Symptoms in an Aggressive Dog: An Italian Case Report.Veterinary sciences · 2023Article
- Human-directed attachment behavior in wolves suggests standing ancestral variation for human-dog attachment bonds.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Effects of a Nutritional Supplement (DìRelaxAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Toward more equal and mutual human-pet relations: Insights and possible solutions based on social psychological theories.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Review
- The New Era of Canine Science: Reshaping Our Relationships With Dogs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.