After all, how valuable is the dog model for examining human socio-cognitive abilities?

One of the most striking questions of cognitive ethology is how we got in 50 years from dogs tested as laboratory rats to thick volumes analysing the ethology of family dogs? Due to its shared evolutionary history and developmental environment with humans, the dog was introduced as an inspiring model species of the evolution of human socio-cognitive skills. The human behavioural complex theory provided the conceptual ammunition, and the resulting theoretical framework prioritised the dog, whose social competence was argued to be assembled through convergent evolution, in contrast to homology-based model species. Since then, the dog has been applied as the model of numerous phenomena, such as communicative abilities, attachment, personality, social learning, talent, cooperation/prosocial behaviour, ageing, human psychiatric conditions, language competence, autism spectrum disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Recently, behavioural observations could be connected and complemented with genetic and neural research. The dog model became a great success, though an alternative approach argued that dogs were much better represented by free-ranging than companion dogs in research. Still, revealing countless similarities (and differences) between dog and human behaviours/abilities, and especially how dogs integrate these skills, the dog model offered a novel complementary approach to study the evolution of the human mind. It has helped us understand the processes and mental representations underlying dogs' and humans' functionally analogous behaviour complexes, and guided how this knowledge can be applied even in future translational research. A better understanding of dogs' socio-cognitive abilities is also highly beneficial in itself, as our relationship with them has changed. It is no longer sufficient that they have skilfully adapted to our world; we also strive to make our coexistence more comfortable for them.