Lupomorphism or babymorphism
Both researchers and dog experts often refer to one of two extreme behavioural models stressing the importance of either the dog-wolf or the doghuman child similarities. In some respects these views are specific cases of the problems discussed above in relation to anthropomorphism. Models
that stress the homologous relationship between the two Canis species use the metaphor of 'wolf in dog's clothing'. These lupomorph models (Serpell and Jagoe 1995) assume that domestication changed only the superficial characteristics of wolf behaviour. For example, this view suggests that the social interactions between humans and dogs should be based on the rules that apply in wolf society. It follows that there is a need for strong hierarchy, which should be established, maintained, and controlled by the human using the behavioural actions and signals on which wolf society is based. Importantly, based on this view we would expect that if dogs inherited the genetic endowment of wolves without major differences then equalization of environmental differences would result in dog-like behaviour in the ancestors; however, this is not true (Chapter 8, p. 165). Although this behavioural model relies on the well-established notion of a close evolutionary relationship between dog and wolf, it fails to recognize that our understanding of wolf behaviour is very limited (and has changed a lot since the beginning of systematic observational and experimental work; see chapters in Mech and Boitani 2003). Wolf behaviour is also very variable, and there are large differences both over time (ancestors of recent wolves might have had different societies) and in space (different populations of wolves might adopt different patterns of social behaviour). Thus the lupomorph model is often based on 'idealized' wolf behaviour not really supported by current knowledge.
At the other end of the modelling spectrum, experts argue that not only does the adaptation process lead to significant changes in the social behaviour system of dogs, but these individuals actually live in a social world which is in many respects comparable to that of a 1-2 year old human toddler. These analogue models refer to the 'infant in dog's clothing' metaphor, suggesting that the social behaviour of dogs should be understood in terms of the human parental relationships. It is not exceptional that people attribute child-like behaviours to dogs, and say that 'dogs are just like small children'. In one study university students reported only quantitative differences between a typical dog and a school-aged boy on many characteristic anthropomorphic traits like 'moral judgements', 'pleasure', 'imagination', etc. (Rasmussen and Rajecki 1995). Thus these babymorph models suggest that dogs are in the social position of a human child with mental abilities corresponding to that of a 1-2 year old. Humans are expected to show parental behaviour towards dogs in terms of affiliative interactions and teaching or education (Meisterfeld and Pecci 2000). However, these models seem to neglect the fact that in human societies dogs often play other social roles than being a child substitute, and human parental behaviour is very variable and probably sensitive to the ecological environment, so the 'Western style' of human-dog interaction may not have been the rule. A further problem is that dogs and infants differ greatly in their experience of the world as well as their cognitive and behavioural capacities.
Actually, both types of extreme model seem to confuse evolutionary arguments and fail to recognize the exceptionally high variability in doghuman relationships, which obviously has several sources (see also Serpell and Jagoe 1995). First, present-day dogs have a wide range of genetically influenced patterns of social behaviour. This means that depending on their selection history and the resulting genetic endowment, dogs will perform differently in different environments. Second, the type of relationship between humans can be very varied. Although some dogs do indeed play the role of a child substitute, others are more of a social companion of equal rank and many dogs live in a working relationship in which their contribution to the family can be measured in financial terms. Third, ecological and cultural traditions have often changed dog-human relationships over time. For example, in some cultures dogs are still part of the human diet, and in other cultures this has ceased only recently.
Thus it seems unlikely that either of the extreme behavioural models can succeed on its own, and it is also not the case that dogs are somewhere between the two extremes. For a comprehensive framework it might be more advantageous to develop behavioural models based on a different approach.
Post a comment