Exploration is important for animals to be able to gather information about features of their environment that may directly or indirectly influence survival and reproduction. Closely related to exploration is neophobia, which may reduce exposure to danger, but also constrain explorative behaviour. Here we investigated the effects of social relationships on neophobia and exploration in wolves, Canis lupus, and dogs, Canis familiaris. Eleven pack-living wolves reared by human foster parents and 13 identically raised and kept dogs were tested in a novel object test under three different conditions: (1) alone, (2) paired with a pack mate and (3) together with the entire pack. Dogs were less neophobic than wolves and interacted faster with the novel objects. However, the dogs showed overall less interest in the novel objects than wolves, which investigated the objects for longer than the dogs. Both wolves and dogs manipulated objects for longer when paired or in the pack than when alone. While kinship facilitated the investigation of novel objects in the pair condition in both wolves and dogs, rank distance had opposite effects. Our results suggest that the presence of conspecifics supported the exploration of novel objects in both wolves and dogs, particularly within kin and that this may be interpreted as risk sharing. The reduced latency to approach objects and less time spent exploring objects in dogs compared to wolves may be interpreted as an effect of domestication.

Dogs, although very skilled in social communicative tasks, have shown limited abilities in the domain of physical cognition. Consequently, several researchers hypothesized that domestication enhanced dogs' cognitive abilities in the social realm, but relaxed selection on the physical one. For instance, dogs failed to demonstrate means-end understanding, an important form of relying on physical causal connection, when tested in a string-pulling task. Here, we tested dogs in an 'on/ off' task using a novel approach. Thirty-two dogs were confronted with four different conditions in which they could choose between two boards one with a reward 'on' and another one with a reward 'off' (reward was placed next to the board). The dogs chose the correct board when 1) both rewards were placed at the same distance from the dog, when 2) the reward placed 'on' the board was closer to the dog, and 3) even when the reward placed 'off' the board was much closer to the dog and was food. Interestingly, in the latter case dogs did not perform above chance, if instead of a direct reward, the dogs had to retrieve an object placed on the board to get a food reward. In contrast to previous string pulling studies, our results show that dogs are able to solve a means-end task even if proximity of the unsupported reward is a confounding factor.