Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

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.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Behaviour

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.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Ethology, Biological Institute, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Pázmány Péter s. 1/c, H-1117, Hungary

10.1163/156853912X629148
/content/journals/10.1163/156853912x629148
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853912x629148
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Adler L.L. , Adler H.E. ( 1977). "Ontogeny of observational learning in the dog ( Canis familiaris)". — Dev. Psychobiol. Vol 10: 267- 271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dev.420100310
2. Anderson J.R. , Fornasieri I. , Ludes E. , Roeder J.J. ( 1992). "Social processes and innovative behaviour in changing groups of Lemur fulvus ". — Behav. Proc. Vol 27: 101- 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(92)90020-E
3. Barnard C.J. , Luo N. ( 2002). "Acquisition of dominance status affects maze learning in mice". — Behav. Proc. Vol 60: 53- 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(02)00121-3
4. Barta Z. , Giraldeau L.-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. Bunnell B.N. , Perkins M.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. Byrne R.W. ( 1998). "A comment on Boesch, C. and Tomasello, M. chimpanzee and human culture". — Curr. Anthropol. Vol 39: 604- 605.
7. Campbell F.M. , Heyes C.M. , Goldsmith A.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
8. Chalmeau R. , Gallo A. ( 1993). "Social constraints determine what is learned in the chimpanzee". — Behav. Proc. Vol 28: 173- 179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(93)90090-E
9. Coussi-Korbell S. , Fragaszy D.M. ( 1995). "On the relationship between social dynamics and social learning". — Anim. Behav. Vol 50: 1441- 1453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80001-8
10. Custance D. , Whiten A. , Fredman T. ( 1999). "Social learning of an artificial fruit task in capuchin monkeys ( Cebus appella)". J. Comp. Psychol. Vol 113: 13- 25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.113.1.13
11. Dorrance B.R. , Zentall T.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. Fawcett T.W. , Skinner A.M.J. , Goldsmith A.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. Heyes C.M. , Dawson G.R. ( 1990). "A demonstration of observational learning in rats using a bidirectional control". — Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Vol 42: 59- 71.
14. Heyes C.M. , Saggerson A. ( 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
15. Hopper L.M. ( 2010). "Ghost’ experiments and the dissection of social learning in humans and animals". — Biol. Rev. Vol 85: 685- 701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00120.x
16. Kaminski J. , Nitzschner M. , Wobber V. , Tennie C. , Bräuer J. , Call J. , Tomasello M. ( 2011). "Do dogs distinguish rational from irrational acts?"— Anim. Behav. Vol 81: 195- 203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.10.001
17. Kubinyi E. , Miklósi Á. , Topál J. , Csányi V. ( 2003a). "Social anticipation in dogs: a new form of social influence". — Anim. Cogn. Vol 6: 57- 64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0163-1
18. Kubinyi E. , Pongrácz P. , Miklósi Á. ( 2009). "Dog as a model for studying conspecific and heterospecific social learning". — J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. Vol 4: 31- 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2008.08.009
19. Kubinyi E. , Topál J. , Miklósi Á. , Csányi V. ( 2003b). "The effect of human demonstrator on the acquisition of a manipulative task". — J. Comp. Psychol. Vol 117: 156- 165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.117.2.156
20. Laland K.N. ( 2004). "Social learning strategies". — Learn. Behav. Vol 32: 4- 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196002
21. Mersmann D. , Tomasello M. , Call J. , Kaminski J. , Taborsky M. ( 2011). "Simple mechanisms can explain social learning in dogs ( Canis familiaris)". — Ethology Vol 117: 1- 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2011.01919.x
22. Miklósi Á. ( 2007). Dog behaviour, evolution and cognition. — Oxford University Press, Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199295852.001.0001
23. Miller H.C. , Rayburn-Reeves R. , Zentall T.R. ( 2009). "Imitation and emulation by dogs using a bidirectional control procedure". — Behav. Proc. Vol 80: 109- 114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2008.09.011
24. Mitchell C.J. , Heyes C.M. , Gardner M.R. , Dawson G.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. Nicol C.J. , Pope S.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. Pongrácz P. , Miklósi Á. , Kubinyi E. , Gurobi K. , Topál J. , Csányi V. ( 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. Pongrácz P. , Miklósi Á. , Kubinyi E. , Topál J. , Csányi V. ( 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
28. Pongrácz P. , Miklósi Á. , Timár-Geng K. , Csányi V. ( 2003b). "Preference for copying unambiguous demonstrations in dogs ( Canis familiaris)". — J. Comp. Psychol. Vol 117: 337- 343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.337
29. Pongrácz P. , Miklósi Á. , Timár-Geng K. , Csányi V. ( 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. Pongrácz P. , Vida V. , Bánhegyi P. , Miklósi Á. ( 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
31. Range F. , Huber L. , Heyes C. ( 2011). "Automatic imitation in dogs". — Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Vol 278: 211- 217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1142
32. Range F. , Virányi Z. , Huber L. ( 2007). "Selective imitation in domestic dogs". — Curr. Biol. Vol 17: 1- 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.026
33. Slabbert J.M. , Rasa O.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. Szetei V. , Miklósi Á. , Topál J. , Csányi V. ( 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. Tennie C. , Tempelmann S. , Glabsch E. , Bräuer J. , Kaminski J. , Call J. ( 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
36. Tomasello M. ( 1998). "Emulation learning and cultural learning". — Behav. Brain Sci. Vol 21: 703- 704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X98441748
37. Topál J. , Gergely G. , Erdőhegyi Á. , Csibra G. , Miklósi Á. ( 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
38. Voelkl B. , Huber L. ( 1999). "True imitation in marmosets". — Anim. Behav. Vol 60: 195- 202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2000.1457
39. Wood D. ( 1989). "Social interaction as tutoring". — In: Interaction in human development( Bornstein M.H. , Bruner J.S. , eds). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, p.  59- 80.
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/156853912x629148
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156853912x629148
2012-01-01
2016-09-28

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation