The team tested 137 purebred dogs representing 49 breeds across two classic ethological paradigms: the so-called unsolvable task and an indoor separation test. In the unsolvable task, a dog is presented with a container holding food that it cannot open. After a brief period of solvable trials, the apparatus is secretly locked, and researchers record how the dog responds. Does it persist alone, or does it turn to the nearest human, alternating its gaze between the person and the apparatus in what ethologists call the two-stage gaze alternation? This looking-back response is widely interpreted as a solicitation of human help, a hallmark of the dog’s uniquely human-directed social attention. The separation test, meanwhile, measures how a dog copes when its owner steps out of sight, capturing behaviors such as whining, barking, and physical agitation that are associated with fear, frustration, and in extreme cases, separation-related disorder.

The first factor the researchers examined was functional selection, the historical division of breeds into those developed for cooperative work with humans, such as herding and sledding dogs, and those bred for independent work, such as livestock guarding and hunting breeds that must make decisions far from human direction. The logic of this division is straightforward: a sheepdog must constantly coordinate with its handler, while a guard dog left alone with a flock cannot afford to keep checking in with people. Decades of selective breeding for these contrasting working styles were expected to leave a measurable imprint on social cognition. The new data confirmed that expectation. Cooperative breeds displayed significantly more human-dependent behaviors in the unsolvable task than independent breeds did, turning more readily to people when the puzzle became impossible.

Yet the study’s most striking insight came from its second factor: the division within breeds. Modern pedigree breeding has split many breeds into working lines and show lines, sometimes for more than a century. Working-line dogs are still selected for performance in their original functional roles, while show-line dogs are selected primarily for conformation to breed standards and success in the ring. The researchers found that this within-breed division had a strong modifying effect on human-dependency. Working-line dogs showed weaker human-dependency than their show-line counterparts, a result that may seem counterintuitive at first glance, since working dogs are precisely the ones trained to collaborate with people. But the authors interpret this pattern through the lens of task independence: dogs bred for demanding practical work are expected to solve problems on their own and only then recruit human assistance, whereas show-line dogs, whose daily lives revolve around close handling, grooming, and constant human management, may have experienced intensified selection or simply accumulated experience favoring persistent human orientation.

The third factor moved the analysis from the breeding kennel to the dog’s own biography: regular engagement in dog sports. Whether a dog participated in activities such as agility, obedience, or other structured training turned out to be far more than a footnote. Sports engagement could actually mask the influence of the breeding lines, reshaping dependency in opposite directions depending on the dog’s genetic background. Among show-line dogs, participation in sports was associated with lower human-dependency, plausibly because these dogs learned to work through challenges with a handler’s guidance rather than defaulting to helpless solicitation. Among working-line dogs, however, sports involvement came with increased reliance on humans. The authors suggest that intensive shared training may amplify the cooperative tendencies already latent in these breeds, teaching dogs that human attention is a highly effective problem-solving resource.

The separation test added a second, emotionally charged dimension to the picture. Here, all three factors were associated with the dogs’ reactions, but the specific behaviors told different stories. Whining, which the researchers interpret as a sign of fear, was more prevalent in show-line dogs, hinting that these animals may be more vulnerable to distress when their ever-present human caretakers disappear. Barking, by contrast, was classified as a sign of frustration, and it was high in two very different groups: sport-involved dogs from independent breeds and dogs from non-working cooperative breeds. This dissociation between fear-related and frustration-related vocalizations underscores a point that behaviorists have long emphasized but the public often overlooks: separation responses are not a single phenomenon. A dog that whines and paces may be experiencing something quite different from a dog that barks insistently at the door, and the underlying causes may trace back to entirely different combinations of breeding and experience.

Taken together, the results support a conclusion that is both elegant and consequential: human-dependency is a universal trait of domestic dogs, but it is primarily determined at two levels of selection, the ancient functional selection that created breeds, and the more recent selection that carved those breeds into working and show lines. On top of this genetic architecture, lifetime experiences such as training and sports activity act as powerful modulators, capable of amplifying or dampening the inherited predisposition. In statistical terms, the study treated these factors in combination rather than in isolation, and it is precisely this multilevel design that allows the authors to disentangle effects that single-factor studies would inevitably confound. A show-line border collie that never does agility is not behaviorally equivalent to a working-line border collie that competes every weekend, even though both carry the same breed name on their papers.

The methodological care behind these findings deserves attention. The testing protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Welfare Committee at Eötvös Loránd University, in accordance with Hungarian regulations on animal experimentation and the guidelines of the Association for the Study of Animal Behavior. Owners were informed of the study’s aims and procedures and could halt testing at any time if they felt their dog was experiencing unacceptable stress. The dogs were recruited voluntarily through social media advertisements, and the sample’s breadth, 137 dogs spanning 49 breeds, gives the analysis genuine reach across the canine pedigree landscape, even though the authors acknowledge that breed-level and line-level conclusions rest on the distribution of dogs within their sample.

The practical implications ripple outward well beyond academic ethology. For working-dog programs, the results suggest that selecting breeding stock on pedigree lines alone may not predict the social profile of the resulting puppies; the rearing and training environment can shift the behavioral outcome substantially. For the growing field of animal-assisted interventions, where a dog’s tolerance for close human contact and its resilience during separations are critical, the finding that show-line dogs whine more when left alone could inform how therapy and assistance dogs are sourced and prepared. And for the millions of ordinary owners struggling with dogs that panic at the door, the study offers a reframing: separation distress is not a moral failing or a simple matter of spoiling, but the product of deep evolutionary currents interacting with the specific life a dog has led.

There is also a broader scientific lesson here about how we study domestication. Dogs are often described as the oldest domestic animal and a model for understanding the evolution of social cognition, yet much of the classic research treats breed as a monolithic category. This study demonstrates that the breed label conceals at least two nested layers of selection, and that an individual dog’s history of structured activity can override or redirect what those layers predict. The human-dependent behavior that makes dogs so extraordinary among animals, their willingness to gaze into our eyes and solicit our help when the world becomes unsolvable, is not written in a single set of genes. It is written in the accumulated choices of breeders across centuries, in the split between the show ring and the working field, and in the hours a particular dog spends learning, alongside a human partner, that two minds are better than one.

Subject of Research: Multilevel evolutionary and environmental influences on human-dependent behavior in domestic dogs

Article Title: The human-dependent behavior of dogs is influenced by multilevel evolutionary and environmental factors

Article References: Lugosi, C. A., Molnár, I. V., & Pongrácz, P. (2026). The human-dependent behavior of dogs is influenced by multilevel evolutionary and environmental factors. BMC Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-026-02728-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12915-026-02728-y

Keywords: dogs, animal cognition, ethology, functional selection, breeding lines, unsolvable task, separation test, dog sports, human-dependency, domestication, cooperative breeds, behavioral genetics

The research, led by Vesta Eleuteri of the University of Vienna together with Anna Letrari, Lucy Bates of the University of Portsmouth, Catherine Hobaiter of the University of St Andrews, and Angela Stoeger of the University of Vienna and the Vienna Zoo, focused on goal-directed intentionality. In the study of animal communication, this term describes a specific and demanding criterion: a signaller must persist in or modify its signalling until the recipient produces the desired response, rather than simply emitting signals as emotional leaks. Signals that meet this test are treated as deliberate attempts to change another individual’s behaviour, not mere expressions of arousal.

To test for this capacity in the wild, the team observed elephants in two South African protected areas, Addo Elephant National Park and Marakele National Park, with ethical approval from the University of Vienna and permits from South African National Parks. By systematically recording what elephants did with their trunks, ears, heads, and bodies during conflicts, and crucially, what happened next, the researchers could ask whether gestures were tailored to outcomes. The answer, they report, was yes: elephants used their gestures to pursue two clearly identifiable goals, which the authors summarise as “Move away” and “Stop behaviour”.

The repertoire itself is strikingly rich. The 41 gesture types were derived from 32 underlying gesture actions, meaning that elephants combine a core set of movements into a larger array of communicative forms. In agonistic contexts, a gesture might involve an elephant extending its trunk toward a rival, positioning its body to block another’s path, or directing a movement that tells a herd mate to back off or cease an unwelcome action. This kind of context-specific vocabulary suggests that elephant gestures are not a general-purpose background hum of movement but a targeted signalling system brought out precisely when the stakes of social interaction rise.

One of the study’s most intriguing results concerns comparison between populations. The gesture types used by the Addo and Marakele elephants largely overlapped, pointing to a shared, species-wide repertoire for agonistic communication rather than two fully independent local dialects. Yet the two populations were not interchangeable. They differed in which gesture types they used most frequently, and they also differed in what they fought over: elephants in Addo competed primarily over water, while those in Marakele competed over reeds. The pattern suggests a common communicative toolkit shaped by shared evolutionary history, with local ecology and social circumstances influencing which tools get used most often.

For the authors, this pattern supports what they describe as the convergent evolution of extensive and flexible intentional gestural communication in elephants. Convergence is a powerful concept in evolutionary biology: when distantly related lineages independently arrive at similar solutions to similar problems, it suggests that the solution is driven by shared pressures rather than shared ancestry. Elephants and apes last shared a common ancestor roughly 100 million years ago, so if both lineages evolved large, flexible, intentional gesture repertoires, the driving forces are likely to be found in their shared social and ecological circumstances, such as long-lived, fission-fusion societies, complex relationships, and frequent conflicts of interest that must be managed without constant physical combat.

The methodological significance of the study lies in extending intentionality research beyond its traditional subjects. Most evidence for goal-directed gesturing in non-human animals comes from great apes, particularly chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, whose repertoires have been catalogued in detail over decades of fieldwork. Semi-captive elephants had previously shown goal-directed intentionality when gesturing to humans, but whether wild elephants gesture intentionally to one another had not been systematically explored until now. By applying the same rigorous criteria used in ape research to a lineage separated from primates by vast evolutionary distance, the study strengthens the case that intentional communication is not a primate invention but a solution that evolution can reach more than once.

Agonistic interactions are an ideal window into this capacity because they sit at the intersection of conflict and cooperation. In species that live in stable social groups, outright fighting is costly: injuries can be debilitating, and damaged relationships can undermine the cooperation that group living depends on. Communication offers a cheaper alternative. A gesture that persuades a rival to move away, or that halts an annoying or threatening behaviour before it escalates, resolves the conflict without contact. The finding that elephants deploy a rich gestural repertoire in exactly these contexts suggests that their communication may play a direct role in keeping the peace within herds and between neighbouring groups.

The study also carries practical implications beyond the laboratory and the field notebook. Understanding how elephants communicate, and what triggers conflict between them, could inform conservation management in places where elephants and humans compete for the same resources, such as water points in arid landscapes or crops at the edge of protected areas. If elephants use predictable gestural signals to manage their own disputes, managers and researchers may gain new ways to interpret elephant behaviour, anticipate escalation, and design interventions that reduce conflict on both sides of the species boundary.

For now, the headline result stands on its own: in the waterholes of Addo and the reed beds of Marakele, wild elephants are doing something that looks remarkably deliberate. They choose from a repertoire of dozens of gesture types, aim those gestures at specific goals, and keep signalling until their audience responds. Two populations with different resources and different habits share most of the same communicative vocabulary, hinting at a deep evolutionary heritage. As research on animal cognition continues to push beyond the great apes, elephants, with their enormous brains, long memories, and intricate societies, are emerging as one of the clearest cases that complex, intentional communication has evolved more than once on Earth.

Subject of Research: Intentional gestural communication in wild African savannah elephants during agonistic interactions

Article Title: Elephant gestural communication during agonistic interactions: repertoire, intentionality, and goals

Article References: Eleuteri, V., Letrari, A., Bates, L., Hobaiter, C., & Stoeger, A. (2026). Elephant gestural communication during agonistic interactions: repertoire, intentionality, and goals. Animal Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-026-02108-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10071-026-02108-7

Keywords: elephants, gestural communication, intentionality, agonistic behaviour, animal cognition, African savannah elephant, Addo Elephant National Park, Marakele National Park, convergent evolution, ethology, conflict resolution, social behaviour