Dogs wait longer for better rewards than wolves in a delay of gratification task: but why?

Self-control has been shown to be linked with being cooperative and successful in humans and with the g-factor in chimpanzees. As such, it is likely to play an important role in all forms of problem-solving. Self-control, however, does not just vary across individuals but seems also to be dependent on the ecological niche of the respective species. With dogs having been selected to live in the human environment, several domestication hypotheses have predicted that dogs are better at self-control and thus more tolerant of longer delays than wolves. Here we set out to test this prediction by comparing dogs’ and wolves’ self-control abilities using a delay of gratification task where the animals had to wait for a predefined delay duration to exchange a low-quality reward for a high-quality reward. We found that in our task, dogs outperformed the wolves waiting an average of 66 s vs. 24 s in the wolves. Food quality did not influence how long the animals waited for the better reward. However, dogs performed overall better in motivation trials than the wolves, although the dogs’ performance in those trials was dependent on the duration of the delays in the test trials, whereas this was not the case for the wolves. Overall, the data suggest that selection by humans for traits influencing self-control rather than ecological factors might drive self-control abilities in wolves and dogs. However, several other factors might contribute or explain the observed differences including the presence of the humans, which might have inhibited the dogs more than the wolves, lower motivation of the wolves compared to the dogs to participate in the task and/or wolves having a better understanding of the task contingencies. These possible explanations need further exploration.ISSN:1435-9456ISSN:1435-944

Exploring the social network of European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in captivity

Socially flexible species might be at an advantage when facing environmental unpredictability, human-induced rapid environmental changes, or unnatural conditions such as encountered in captivity. The European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) was originally described as solitarily living forest-dwelling species. In recent decades, it has expanded its range into urban and agricultural areas forming large aggregations in open habitats. Captive environments are thought to mimic some challenges encountered in rapidly changing habitats, however, to date no study has assessed how roe deer social structure changes in captive conditions. In this study, we explored the social network of a small group of captive and unrelated roe deer over the course of a ten-month period using camera traps. We found that the roe deer established a temporally stable and non-random social network with the buck as the most central and dominant individual. In addition, we analysed affiliative interactions, which have not been described in roe deer yet. We found that the affiliation network consisted not only of preferential associations between the buck and other females, but also between females, whereby a young female played a central role. The seasonal changes in roe deer’ gregariousness observed in the wild were also observed in the captive population with an increase in association strength and social interactions in autumn. These results suggest that roe deer kept in a group setting in captivity seem to flexibly adjust their social behaviour; thus, supporting the assumption that roe deer show a high social flexibility that facilitates adaptations to various habitats.ISSN:0168-1591ISSN:1872-904

No evidence for a relationship between breed cooperativeness and inequity aversion in dogs

Inequity aversion, the resistance to inequitable outcomes, has been demonstrated in a wide variety of animal species. Inequity aversion was hypothesised to have co-evolved with cooperation but only limited evidence supports this. Dogs provide a suitable model species to test this hypothesis as dogs were previously shown to be inequity averse and dog breeds vary in the extent to which they were selected for cooperativeness. Here, we compared the response of 12 individuals of “cooperative worker” breeds with that of 12 individuals of “independent worker” breeds in the “paw task” previously used to demonstrate inequity aversion in dogs. We also compared the two breed groups’ subsequent social behaviours in a food tolerance test and free interaction session. Although subjects in both breed groups were inequity averse, we found no considerable difference between the groups in the extent of the negative response to inequity or in the impact of the inequity on subsequent social behaviours. However, we found differences between the breed groups in the response to reward omission with cooperative breeds tending to work for longer than independent breeds. Additionally, in the free interaction session, individuals of cooperative breeds spent more time in proximity to their partner in the baseline condition than individuals of independent breeds. Overall, our results do not provide support for the hypothesis that inequity aversion and cooperation co-evolved. However, they illuminate potential differences in selection pressures experienced by cooperative worker and independent worker dog breeds throughout their evolutionary history.ISSN:1932-620

Inequity Aversion Negatively Affects Tolerance and Contact-Seeking Behaviours towards Partner and Experimenter

<div><p>Inequity aversion has been proposed to act as a limiting factor for cooperation, thus preventing subjects from disadvantageous cooperative interactions. While a recent study revealed that also dogs show some sensitivity to inequity, the underlying mechanisms of this behaviour are still unclear. The aim of the current study was threefold: 1) to replicate the study by Range et al. (2009, <i>PNAS</i>, <b>106</b>, 340–345); 2) to investigate the emotional mechanisms involved in the inequity response by measuring the heart rate and 3) to explore the link between inequity aversion and cooperation in terms of behaviours shown towards the partner dog and towards the experimenter who caused the inequity. Dog tested in dyads were alternately asked to give their paw and were either equally or unequally rewarded by the experimenter. After each social test condition, we conducted food tolerance tests and free interaction tests in which the subjects’ social behaviour towards the partner and the experimenter were observed. As in the previous study, subjects refused to continue giving their paw when only the partner was rewarded, but not when both dogs were rewarded with rewards of different quality. Although subjects did not react to this quality inequity during the test, we did find reduced durations of food sharing in the subsequent tolerance test, indicating that dogs perceived the inequity but were not able to react to it in the test context. Moreover, subjects avoided their partner and the experimenter more during the free interaction time following unequal compared to equal treatment. Despite the clear behavioural reactions to inequity, we could not detect any changes in heart rate. Results suggest that inequity aversion might in fact be mediated by simple emotional mechanisms: sharing a negative experience, like inequity, might reduce future cooperation by decreasing the likelihood of proximity being maintained between partners.</p></div

Proportion of time spent in close proximity to the partner dog during the break time following the equity (ET) and reward inequity (RI) condition.

<p>Circles show outliers, black bars indicate median values, whiskers display upper and lower hinge, and boxes show the interquartile range.</p

Setup for tolerance test.

<p>Dogs waiting for the box to be pulled up in order to access to the bowl containing pieces of sausages. The experimenter lifted the box when both dogs were within a 10cm radius of it.</p

Measures of Dogs' Inhibitory Control Abilities Do Not Correlate across Tasks

Inhibitory control, the ability to overcome prepotent but ineffective behaviors, has been studied extensively across species, revealing the involvement of this ability in many different aspects of life. While various different paradigms have been created in order to measure inhibitory control, only a limited number of studies have investigated whether such measurements indeed evaluate the same underlying mechanism, especially in non-human animals. In humans, inhibitory control is a complex construct composed of distinct behavioral processes rather than of a single unified measure. In the current study, we aimed to investigate the validity of inhibitory control paradigms in dogs. Sixty-seven dogs were tested in a battery consisting of frequently used inhibitory control tests. Additionally, dog owners were asked to complete an impulsivity questionnaire about their dog. No correlation of dogs' performance across tasks was found. In order to understand whether there are some underlying behavioral aspects explaining dogs' performance across tests, we performed principle component analyses. Results revealed that three components (persistency, compulsivity and decision speed) explained the variation across tasks. The questionnaire and dogs' individual characteristics (i.e., age and sex) provided only limited information for the derived components. Overall, results suggest that no unique measurement for inhibitory control exists in dogs, but tests rather measure different aspects of this ability. Considering the context-specificity of inhibitory control in dogs and most probably also in other non-human animals, extreme caution is needed when making conclusions about inhibitory control abilities based on a single test