Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35186459›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Dogs and wolves differ in their response allocation to their owner/caregiver or food in a concurrent choice procedure.

Lindsay Isernia, Clive D L Wynne, Leanna House, Erica N Feuerbacher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Lindsay IserniaDepartment of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, VA, United States of America.
Clive D L WynneDepartment of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States of America.
Leanna HouseDepartment of Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, VA, United States of America.
Erica N FeuerbacherDepartment of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, VA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dogs and wolves both show attachment-like behaviors to their owners/caregivers, including exploring more in the presence of the owner/caregiver, and greeting the owner/caregiver more effusively after an absence. Concurrent choice studies can elucidate dogs' and wolves' relationship to their owners/caregivers by assessing their preference for the owner/caregiver compared to other stimuli. While previous research has used concurrent choice paradigms to evaluate dogs' and wolves' preference between humans giving social interaction or humans giving food, no research has explored their preferences for an owner/caregiver compared to food when the food is not delivered by a human. In the current study, we investigated whether dogs and hand-reared wolves preferred their owner/caregiver or food, unassociated with a human, when they had been equally deprived of each stimulus (at least 4 hours). Each canid experienced four trials; we measured first choice and time spent with each alternative. Dogs overall did not show a preference for the owner or food. Wolves, on the other hand, tended to show a preference for food in both measures. We observed a range of individual variation in both measures, although dogs showed more individual variation. The differences we observed between dogs and wolves align with prior research comparing wolf and dog behavior directed towards humans; however, the reasons for this differential responding could be due to a variety of factors beyond phylogeny.

Indexed as

CanidaeWolvesAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCaregiversDogsFoodHumansDomestic dogFoodOwnerPreferenceWolf

Identifiers

PMID35186459
PMCPMC8855717

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.