50
submitted 1 year ago by Bebo@sffa.community to c/science@beehaw.org

Abstract In comparison to non-human animals, humans are highly flexible in cooperative tasks, which may be a result of their ability to understand a partner’s role in such interactions. Here, we tested if wolves and dogs could flexibly adjust their behaviour according to whether they needed a partner to solve a cooperative loose string-pulling paradigm. First, we presented animals with a delay condition where a human partner was released after the subject so that the animal had to delay pulling the string to enable coordinated pulling with the human partner. Subsequently, we investigated whether subjects would recruit a partner depending on whether they could operate the apparatus alone, or help from a partner was required. Both wolves and dogs successfully waited in the delay condition in 88% of the trials. Experimental subjects were also successful in recruiting a partner, which occurred significantly more often in the cooperation trials than in the solo pulling condition. No species differences were found in either experiment. These results suggest that both wolves and dogs have some understanding of whether a social partner is needed to accomplish a task, which enables behavioural coordination and cooperation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

"non-human animals" - very strange wording

[-] frog@beehaw.org 33 points 1 year ago

Pretty normal wording in scientific papers relating to animals, particularly in studies relating to traits humans share with other animals, like cooperation. It relates to the fact that humans are animals: the difference between humans and other animals is a matter of degrees of capability, rather than a binary presence or absence of a trait.

[-] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's pretty much standard in research and biology in general. In common parlance we implicitly add "non-human" when talking about animals, but when biology is the object of study it's better to just be explicit.

Of course, humans are animals, and more specifically mammals and primates. Hopefully nobody is trying to argue we're plants or fungi.

[-] insurgenRat@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

It's just accurate?

[-] Lanthanae@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

How so?

Humans are animals. "Non-human animals" is the most direct and accurate way to specify the set of all animals that aren't humans.

What about it do you consider strange?

[-] Bebo@sffa.community 2 points 1 year ago

Seems to be technically correct.

this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
50 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13006 readers
8 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS