↓ Skip to main content

Domestication has not affected the understanding of means-end connections in dogs

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Domestication has not affected the understanding of means-end connections in dogs
Published in
Animal Cognition, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10071-012-0488-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Friederike Range, Helene Möslinger, Zs Virányi

Abstract

Recent studies have revealed that dogs often perform well in cognitive tasks in the social domain, but rather poorly in the physical domain. This dichotomy has led to the hypothesis that the domestication process might have enhanced the social cognitive skills of dogs (Hare et al. in Science 298:1634-1636, 2002; Miklósi et al. in Curr Biol 13:763-766, 2003) but at the same time had a detrimental effect on their physical cognition (Frank in Z Tierpsychol 5:389-399, 1980). Despite the recent interest in dog cognition and especially the effects of domestication, the latter hypothesis has hardly been tested and we lack detailed knowledge of the physical understanding of wolves in comparison with dogs. Here, we set out to examine whether adult wolves and dogs rely on means-end connections using the string-pulling task, to test the prediction that wolves would perform better than dogs in such a task of physical cognition. We found that at the group level, dogs were more prone to commit the proximity error, while the wolves showed a stronger side bias. Neither wolves nor dogs showed an instantaneous understanding of means-end connection, but made different mistakes. Thus, the performance of the wolves and dogs in this string-pulling task did not confirm that domestication has affected the physical cognition of dogs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 3 2%
United States 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Italy 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 119 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 21%
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Other 9 7%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 16 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 63 47%
Psychology 31 23%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 22 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 May 2020.
All research outputs
#16,874,013
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,272
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,978
of 173,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 173,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.