Using the comparative approach, researchers draw inferences about the evolution of cognition. Psychologists have postulated several hypotheses to explain why certain species are cognitively more flexible than others, and these hypotheses assume that certain cognitive skills are linked together to create a generally “smart” species. However, empirical findings suggest that several animal species are highly specialized, showing exceptional skills in single cognitive domains while performing poorly in others. Although some cognitive skills may indeed overlap, we cannot a priori assume that they do across species. We argue that the term “cognition” has often been used by applying an anthropocentric viewpoint rather than a biocentric one. As a result, researchers tend to overrate cognitive skills that are human-like and assume that certain skills cluster together in other animals as they do in our own species. In this paper, we emphasize that specific physical and social environments create selection pressures that lead to the evolution of certain cognitive adaptations. Skills such as following the pointing gesture, tool-use, perspective-taking, or the ability to cooperate evolve independently from each other as a concrete result of specific selection pressures, and thus have appeared in distantly related species. Thus, there is not “one cognition”. Our argument is founded upon traditional Darwinian thinking, which—although always at the forefront of biology—has sometimes been neglected in animal cognition research. In accordance with the biocentric approach, we advocate a broader empirical perspective as we are convinced that to better understand animal minds, comparative researchers should focus much more on questions and experiments that are ecologically valid. We should investigate nonhuman cognition for its own sake, not only in comparison to the human model.

Most current knowledge about dogs’ understanding of, and reacting to, their environment is limited to the visual or auditory modality, but it remains unclear how olfaction and cognition are linked together. Here we investigate how domestic dogs search for their owners using their excellent olfactory sense. We raise the question whether dogs have a representation of someone when they smell their track. The question is what they expect when they follow a trail or whether they perceive an odour as a relevant or non-relevant stimulus. We adopted a classical violation-of-expectation paradigm—and as targets we used two persons that were both important to the dog, usually the owners. In the critical condition subjects could track the odour trail of one target, but at the end of the trail they find another target. Dogs showed an increased activity when the person did not correspond with the trail compared to a control condition. Moreover, we found huge individual differences in searching behaviour supporting the assumption that dogs are only able to smell when they really sniff, and that the temperature has an influence on dogs performance. Results are discussed in the light of how cognitive abilities, motivation and odour perception influence each other.

Dogs have an extraordinary relationship with humans. We understand, communicate, and cooperate remarkably with our dogs. But almost all we know about dog-human bonds, dog behaviour, and dog cognition is limited to Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) societies. WEIRD dogs are kept for a variety of functions, and these can influence their relationship with their owner, as well as their behaviour and performance in problem-solving tasks. But are such associations representative worldwide? Here we address this by collecting data on the function and perception of dogs in 124 globally distributed societies using the eHRAF cross-cultural database. We hypothesize that keeping dogs for multiple purposes and/or employing dogs for highly cooperative or high investment functions (e.g., herding, guarding of herds, hunting) will lead to closer dog-human bonds: increased primary caregiving (or positive care), decreased negative treatment, and attributing personhood to dogs. Our results show that indeed, the number of functions associates positively with close dog-human interactions. Further, we find increased odds of positive care in societies that use herding dogs (an effect not replicated for hunting), and increased odds of dog personhood in cultures that keep dogs for hunting. Unexpectedly, we see a substantial decrease of dog negative treatment in societies that use watchdogs. Overall, our study shows the mechanistic link between function and the characteristics of dog-human bonds in a global sample. These results are a first step towards challenging the notion that all dogs are the same, and open questions about how function and associated cultural correlates could fuel departures from the ‘typical’ behaviour and social-cognitive skills we commonly associate with our canine friends.

Cooperative hunting is generally considered to be a cognitively challenging activity, as individuals have to coordinate movements along with a partner and at the same time react to the prey. Wolves are said to engage in cooperative hunting regularly, whereas dogs could have maintained, improved, or reduced their cooperative skills during the domestication process. We compared the performance of individuals from two wolf packs and two dog groups with similar gender and rank structure. Members of these groups were tested in dyads with a problem-solving paradigm that involved aspects of a hunting-like situation. Subjects needed to coordinate their actions in order to get food. They were confronted with a social dilemma, in which an individual benefit from being selfish, unless the partner also chooses the selfish alternative, in which case the whole dyad loses. In the task, one partner was required to draw a barrier toward it by rushing forward, allowing the other partner to access the food, at which point both partners were allowed to access the food. Most dyads could solve the problem, with significant variation in their performance but no differences between species. However, the probability of taking the risk in a dyad depended on the species and rank of the individual and on cofeeding in the dyad. The results of this study show that wolves do not always outperform dogs when coordinating their actions, but that the cooperative behavior of Canis depends on many factors, including rank, type of task, and tolerance within the dyad. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Predictions about others’ future actions are crucial during social interactions, in order to react optimally. Another way to assess such interactions is to define the social context of the situations explicitly and categorize them according to their affective content. Here we investigate how humans assess aggressive, playful and neutral interactions between members of three species: human children, dogs and macaques. We presented human participants with short video clips of real-life interactions of dyads of the three species and asked them either to categorize the context of the situation or to predict the outcome of the observed interaction. Participants performed above chance level in assessing social situations in humans, in dogs and in monkeys. How accurately participants predicted and categorized the situations depended both on the species and on the context. Contrary to our hypothesis, participants were not better at assessing aggressive situations than playful or neutral situations. Importantly, participants performed particularly poorly when assessing aggressive behaviour for dogs. Also, participants were not better at assessing social interactions of humans compared to those of other species. We discuss what mechanism humans use to assess social situations and to what extent this skill can also be found in other social species.