Smith Bradley Philip, Litchfield Carla Anita
Appleton Institute, Central Queensland University, 44 Greenhill Road, Wayville, South Australia, 5034, Australia,
Anim Cogn. 2013 Nov;16(6):961-71. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0629-8. Epub 2013 Apr 10.
This paper examined the performance of dingoes (Canis dingo) on the rope-pulling task, previously used by Miklósi et al. (Curr Biol 13:763-766, 2003) to highlight a key distinction in the problem-solving behaviour of wolves compared to dogs when in the company of humans. That is, when dogs were confronted with an unsolvable task, following a solvable version of the task they looked back or gazed at the human, whereas, wolves did not. We replicated the rope-pulling task using 12 sanctuary-housed dingoes and used the Miklósi et al. (Curr Biol 13:763-766, 2003) definition of looking back behaviour to analyse the data. However, at least three different types of look backs were observed in our study. We, then developed a more accurate operational definition of looking back behaviour that was task specific and reanalysed the data. We found that the operational definition employed greatly influences the results, with vague definitions potentially overestimating the prevalence of looking back behaviour. Thus, caution must be taken when interpreting the results of studies utilising looking back as behaviour linked to assistance seeking during problem solving. We present a more stringent definition and make suggestions for future research.
本文研究了澳洲野犬(Canis dingo)在拉绳任务中的表现。此前,米克洛西等人(《当代生物学》13:763 - 766, 2003)曾使用该任务来突出狼与狗在人类陪伴下解决问题行为的关键区别。也就是说,当狗面对一项无法解决的任务时,在完成一项可解决的任务版本后,它们会回头看或注视人类,而狼则不会。我们用12只圈养在庇护所的澳洲野犬重复了拉绳任务,并采用米克洛西等人(《当代生物学》13:763 - 766, 2003)对回头行为的定义来分析数据。然而,在我们的研究中观察到了至少三种不同类型的回头。然后,我们针对特定任务制定了一个更准确的回头行为操作定义,并重新分析了数据。我们发现所采用的操作定义对结果有很大影响,模糊的定义可能会高估回头行为的发生率。因此,在解释将回头视为解决问题过程中与寻求帮助相关行为的研究结果时必须谨慎。我们提出了一个更严格的定义,并对未来研究提出了建议。