Motivation and insight in wolf (Canis lupus) and Alaskan malamute (Canis familiaris): Visual discrimination learning

Abstract

Hand-reared wolves performed better than Alaskan malamutes and maternally reared wolves on Wisconsin General Test Apparatus (WGTA) measures of oddity learning. Differences between the two groups of wolves are interpreted as motivational. Differences between the hand-reared wolves and the malamutes contradicted predictions that dogs should perform better than wolves on training tasks and suggested that the WGTA tasks are amenable to either trial-and-error ("associative") solutions typical of training-task performance or complex cognitive ("insight") solutions more typically observed in problem-solving performance. Accordingly, the hypotheses were tested that (1) insightful solutions produce more rapid acquisition than noninsightful (i.e., associative) solutions, and (2) wolf performance exhibits more insight than does malamute performance. Both hypotheses were confirmed.Frank (1980) hypothesized that wolves (c. lupus) should perform better than domestic dogs (c. familiaris) on experimental problem-solving tasks that call into play such complex cognitive capacities as insight into means-ends relationships, serial organization of behavior, cognitive mapping, imagery, and foresight; and that dogs should perform better than wolves on experimental training tasks, which were formally distinguished from problem-solving tasks by three criteria: in training tasks, (1) cues are arbitrarily determined by the experimenter, (2) reinforcement is administered by the experimenter, and (3) the to-be-learned behavior has no perceptible, functional connection with the reinforcement.Experimental tests of these hypotheses were reported by and include perfomance comparisons of four Eastern timber wolf (c. I. Iycaon) pups with four Alaskan malamute (c. familiaris) pups on a series of seven age-graded training tasks. The malamutes performed significantly better than the wolves on five of the tasks and marginally better (p = .067) on one.However, the results of the seventh training task-a measure of visual discrimination learning-narrowly failed significance in the opposite direction.Although most of these results support Frank's (1980) second hypothesis, the wolf pups were less socialized to

Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris)

“…It has been known for long that wolves can only be socialized if they are separated before eye opening from the mother (Klinghammer and Goodmann 1987) and they are raised separated from other wolves (and dogs) for the Wrst few months after birth. Frank et al (1989) reported that their wolf puppies that were fostered both by a wolf and humans and received less than 20 h of daily contact with humans were nearly as wary of humans as were pups reared without human contact. This means that wolves having received less extensive human contact and having been exposed too early to conspeciWcs (even if they tolerate the presence of humans) cannot be regarded as having comparable experience and being in the same arousal and motivational state as dogs when tested in such experimental situations.…”

“…Frank and Frank (1982) socialized four wolves and four dog puppies (malamutes) in parallel both to humans and wolves/dogs, and in a replication study hand-reared seven wolf pups with higher exposure to people and contact with only littermates. These animals have been tested in various tasks involving visual discrimination learning (Frank et al 1989), problem solving (Frank and Frank 1982) and training tasks (Frank and Frank 1987). More recently, there have been two studies comparing dogs' and wolves' use of human-given cues to Wnd hidden food in object-choice tasks.…”

“…In these two studies, however, the validity of comparing the success of the wolves to that of dogs is highly questionable on a methodological basis, since experiences of these wolves are hardly comparable to those of dogs (see also Miklósi et al 2003). This aspect may have a special importance, since in a visual discrimination task the wolves' performance was found to depend on their rearing history: the ones socialized thoroughly to humans outperformed the dogs, whereas others reared both by humans and a wolf were slower than the dogs in reversal learning (Frank et al 1989).…”

“…Study 1: comparing wolf and dog puppies in a two-way choice task with human distal pointing Studies of Klinghammer and Goodmann (1987) and Frank et al (1989) show that the duration and management of early socialization in wolves is critical for later behaviour toward humans. They have found that wolves who were exposed to conspeciWcs for extended periods before the age of 8-10 weeks, later developed wariness and avoidance in presence of humans.…”

Species-specific differences and similarities in the behavior of hand-raised dog and wolf pups in social situations with humans

“…Feddersen-Petersen (1986) compared the intraspecific behavior of young wolves and dogs having limited contact with humans. Others have raised wolves and dogs in human environments (Fentress, 1967;Frank, 1980;Frank & Frank, 1982a;Frank, Frank, Hasselbach, & Littleton, 1989;Woolpy & Ginsburg, 1967) in order to investigate motivational and cognitive differences. Such comparative research usually assumes that the revealed species characteristics and/or specific differences reflect the influences of differential genetic determination.…”