When rank counts — dominant dogs learn better from a human demonstrator in a two-action test
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on
BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an
institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform
automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the
Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a
favorably uniform low price.
Dogs can learn effectively from a human demonstrator in detour tests as well as in different kinds of manipulative tasks. In this experiment we used a novel two-action device from which the target object (a ball) was obtained by tilting a tube either by pulling a rope attached to the end of the tube, or by directly pushing the end of the tube. Tube tilting was relatively easy for naïve companion dogs; therefore, the effect of the human demonstration aimed to alter or increase the dogs’ initial preference for tube pushing (according to the behaviour shown by naïve dogs in the absence of a human demonstrator). Our results have shown that subjects preferred the demonstrated action in the two-action test. After having witnessed the tube pushing demonstration, dogs performed significantly more tube pushing than the dogs in the rope pulling demonstration group. In contrast, dogs that observed the rope pulling demonstration, performed significantly more similar actions than the subjects of the other demonstration group. The ratio of rope pulling was significantly higher in the rope pulling demonstration group, than in the No Demo (control) group. The overall success of solving the task was also influenced by the social rank of the dog among its conspecific companions at home. Independently of the type of demonstration, dominant dogs solved the task significantly more often than the subordinate dogs did. There was no such difference in the No Demo group.This experiment has shown that a simple two-action device that does not require excessive pre-training, can be suitable for testing social learning in dogs. However, effects of social rank should be taken into account when social learning in dogs is being studied and tested, because dominant and subordinate dogs perform differently after observing a demonstrator.
1: Department of Ethology, Biological Institute, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Pázmány Péter s. 1/c, H-1117, Hungary
4. BartaZ. , GiraldeauL.-A. ( 1998). "The effect of dominance hierarchy on the use of alternative foraging tactics: a phenotype-limited producing-scrounging game". — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. Vol 42: 217- 223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002650050433
5. BunnellB.N. , PerkinsM.N. ( 1980). "Performance correlates of social behaviour and organization: social rank and complex problem solving in crab-eating macaques ( M. fascicularis)". — Primates Vol 21: 515- 523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02373840
6. ByrneR.W. ( 1998). "A comment on Boesch, C. and Tomasello, M. chimpanzee and human culture". — Curr. Anthropol. Vol 39: 604- 605.
7. CampbellF.M. , HeyesC.M. , GoldsmithA.R. ( 1999). "Stimulus learning and response learning by observation in the European starling, in a two-object/two-action test". — Anim. Behav. Vol 58: 151- 158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1121
11. DorranceB.R. , ZentallT.R. ( 2001). "Imitative learning in Japanese quail depends on the motivational state of the observer quail at the time of observation". — J. Comp. Psychol. Vol 115: 62- 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.115.1.62
12. FawcettT.W. , SkinnerA.M.J. , GoldsmithA.R. ( 2002). "A test for imitative learning in starlings using a two-action method with an enhanced ghost control". — Anim. Behav. Vol 64: 547- 556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3092
13. HeyesC.M. , DawsonG.R. ( 1990). "A demonstration of observational learning in rats using a bidirectional control". — Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Vol 42: 59- 71.
14. HeyesC.M. , SaggersonA. ( 2002). "Testing for imitative and nonimitative social learning in the budgerigar using a two-object/two-action test". — Anim. Behav. Vol 64: 851- 859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2002
24. MitchellC.J. , HeyesC.M. , GardnerM.R. , DawsonG.R. ( 1999). "Limitations of a bidirectional control procedure for the investigation of imitation in rats: odour cues on the manipulandum". — Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Vol 52: 193- 202.
25. NicolC.J. , PopeS.J. ( 1999). "The effects of demonstrator social status and prior foraging success on social learning in laying hens". — Anim. Behav. Vol 57: 163- 171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1998.0920
26. PongráczP. , MiklósiÁ. , KubinyiE. , GurobiK. , TopálJ. , CsányiV. ( 2001). "Social learning in dogs: the effect of a human demonstrator on the performance of dogs in a detour task". — Anim. Behav. Vol 62: 1109- 1117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1866
27. PongráczP. , MiklósiÁ. , KubinyiE. , TopálJ. , CsányiV. ( 2003a). "Interaction between individual experience and social learning in dogs". — Anim. Behav. Vol 65: 595- 603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2079
29. PongráczP. , MiklósiÁ. , Timár-GengK. , CsányiV. ( 2004). "Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog and human". — J. Comp. Psychol. Vol 118: 375- 383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.375
30. PongráczP. , VidaV. , BánhegyiP. , MiklósiÁ. ( 2008). "How does dominance rank status affect individual and social learning performance in the dog ( Canis familiaris)?"— Anim. Cogn. Vol 11: 75- 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0090-7
33. SlabbertJ.M. , RasaO.A.E. ( 1997). "Observational learning of an acquired maternal behaviour pattern by working dog pups: an alternative training method?"— Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. Vol 53: 309- 316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01163-X
34. SzeteiV. , MiklósiÁ. , TopálJ. , CsányiV. ( 2003). "When dogs seem to lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and owner". — Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. Vol 83: 141- 152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00114-X
35. TennieC. , TempelmannS. , GlabschE. , BräuerJ. , KaminskiJ. , CallJ. ( 2009). "Dogs ( Canis familiaris) fail to copy intransitive actions in third party contextual imitation tasks". — Anim. Behav. Vol 77: 1491- 1499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.03.008
37. TopálJ. , GergelyG. , ErdőhegyiÁ. , CsibraG. , MiklósiÁ. ( 2009). "Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants". — Science Vol 325: 1269- 1272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1176960