Study
Importance of a species’ socioecology: Wolves outperform dogs in a conspecific cooperation task
Marshall-Pescini, Sarah; Schwarz, Jonas F. L.; Kostelnik, Inna; Virányi, Zsófia; Range, Friederike
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017
Wolves and dogs raised under identical conditions from the same age were tested in pairs on a loose-string task, in which a tray can be pulled only if both animals pull simultaneously.
- Studied in
- Canis lupus, Canis familiaris
- Sample size
- pack-living wolves and dogs raised identically, tested in pairs
Wolf pairs succeeded far more often than dog pairs. Dogs largely avoided approaching the apparatus together, particularly where a dominance difference existed.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Cooperation with conspecifics is more developed in wolves than in dogs, contrary to the assumption that domestication selected for cooperativeness.
How NatureHQ reads it
The identical rearing is what makes this worth citing: comparisons between wolves and pet dogs usually confound species with upbringing, and this one does not. The result inverts a common story about domestication — dogs cooperate readily with *humans*, and that is a different capacity from cooperating with each other. It is also a study on hand-raised captive wolves, which are not wild wolves, and the finding is about tolerance around a resource as much as about cooperation.
- Hand-raised captive animals of both species; neither is a wild population.
- Dog subjects were pack-housed, which is unlike the life of most pet dogs.
- A single cooperation paradigm; failure on the string task may reflect food tolerance rather than cooperative ability.
Two animals, one rope, and a tray that only moves if both pull
Domestication is assumed to have made dogs more cooperative. Compared with wolves, is that true?
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesPublished in PNAS.
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1709027114
This reference was resolved automatically against Crossref on 2026-08-11.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-08-09.