Cited by 347Human-Animal Interaction StudiesPrimate Behavior and EcologyAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Social Cognitive Evolution in Captive Foxes Is a Correlated By-Product of Experimental Domestication

Open access
Hare, Brian, Plyusnina, Irene, Ignacio, Natalie, Schepina, Olesya, Stepika, Anna, Wrangham, Richard, Trut, Lyudmila·2005·Current Biology

Abstract

Dogs have an unusual ability for reading human communicative gestures (e.g., pointing) in comparison to either nonhuman primates (including chimpanzees) or wolves . Although this unusual communicative ability seems to have evolved during domestication , it is unclear whether this evolution occurred as a result of direct selection for this ability, as previously hypothesized , or as a correlated by-product of selection against fear and aggression toward humans--as is the case with a number of morphological and physiological changes associated with domestication . We show here that fox kits from an experimental population selectively bred over 45 years to approach humans fearlessly and nonaggressively (i.e., experimentally domesticated) are not only as skillful as dog puppies in using human gestures but are also more skilled than fox kits from a second, control population not bred for tame behavior (critically, neither population of foxes was ever bred or tested for their ability to use human gestures) . These results suggest that sociocognitive evolution has occurred in the experimental foxes, and possibly domestic dogs, as a correlated by-product of selection on systems mediating fear and aggression, and it is likely the observed social cognitive evolution did not require direct selection for improved social cognitive ability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.040

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hare, B., Plyusnina, I., Ignacio, N., Schepina, O., Stepika, A., Wrangham, R., & Trut, L.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Institute of Cytology and Genetics (RU)
Corresponding author
Hare, Brian
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-02
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
226-230
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144909109
Cited by
347
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 9
FWCI
12.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
social cognition, red fox, gesturing, pointing, dogs, correlated evolution, fear of humans, selective breeding, human-animal communication
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Domestic, Cognition, Cues, Biological Evolution, Foxes, Selection, Genetic, Social Behavior, Species Specificity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review