↓ Skip to main content

Social learning from humans or conspecifics: differences and similarities between wolves and dogs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
17 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Social learning from humans or conspecifics: differences and similarities between wolves and dogs
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00868
Pubmed ID
Authors

Friederike Range, Zsófia Virányi

Abstract

Most domestication hypotheses propose that dogs have been selected for enhanced communication and interactions with humans, including learning socially from human demonstrators. However, to what extent these skills are newly derived and to what extent they originate from wolf-wolf interactions is unclear. In order to test for the possible origins of dog social cognition, we need to compare the interactions of wolves and dogs with humans and with conspecifics. Here, we tested identically raised and kept juvenile wolves and dogs in a social learning task with human and conspecific demonstrators. Using a local enhancement task, we found that both wolves and dogs benefitted from a demonstration independent of the demonstrator species in comparison to a control, no demonstration condition. Interestingly, if the demonstrator only pretended to hide food at the target location, wolves and dogs reacted differently: while dogs differentiated between this without-food and with-food demonstration independent of the demonstrator species, wolves only did so in case of human demonstrators. We attribute this finding to wolves being more attentive toward behavioral details of the conspecific models than the dogs: although the demonstrator dogs were trained to execute the demonstration, they disliked the food reward, which might have decreased the interest of the wolves in finding the food reward. Overall, these results suggest that dogs but also wolves can use information provided by both human and conspecific demonstrators in a local enhancement task. Therefore we suggest that a more fine-scale analysis of dog and wolf social learning is needed to determine the effects of domestication.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Unknown 212 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 21%
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 13%
Researcher 25 11%
Other 11 5%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 42 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 86 39%
Psychology 40 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 16 7%
Environmental Science 6 3%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 50 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 166. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2023.
All research outputs
#240,368
of 25,129,395 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#507
of 33,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,604
of 293,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#26
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,129,395 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.