You drop something behind the couch. Your dog perks up, watching your hands, maybe even nudging at the cushions as if ready to help. Your cat, on the other hand, might watch quietly or wander off entirely.
That contrast may not just be a matter of personality. In Animal Behaviour, researchers report that dogs are much more likely than cats to spontaneously help a familiar caregiver, and in some situations, they behave much like toddlers.
In a study comparing untrained companion dogs, companion cats, and children aged 16 to 24 months, more than 75 percent of dogs and toddlers either indicated or retrieved a hidden object when a parent or owner searched for it without asking for help. Cats rarely did.
“Interestingly, the majority of dogs and children showed similar behaviour patterns. They readily engaged with the situation, and more than 75 percent of them either indicated or retrieved the object, suggesting strong motivation to help — despite being untrained, receiving no reward,” said Melitta Csepregi, first author of the study, in a press release.
Read More: Cats Rarely Meow at Other Cats — Do They Save Their Voices for Us? Here’s What We Know
Testing Helping Behavior In Cats, Dogs, and Toddlers
The team set out to measure prosocial behavior, actions that benefit another individual without an obvious reward, in a controlled but familiar setting.
In the experiment, a caregiver searched for an object that had been hidden in plain view of the child, dog, or cat. The adult did not ask for help. Researchers tracked whether subjects alternated their gaze between the object and the caregiver, approached it, manipulated it, or retrieved it.
The object itself was neutral, such as a dishwashing sponge, eliminating obvious personal motivation.
All three groups paid attention to the caregiver’s search. But when it came to action, dogs and toddlers responded at similar rates — approaching, indicating, and sometimes retrieving the object. Cats were much less likely to intervene.
When Personal Motivation Changes the Outcome
To rule out simple object interest, researchers added a control trial in which the hidden item was something the subject valued, like a favorite toy or treat.
Under those conditions, the differences vanished. Cats engaged at levels comparable to dogs and toddlers.
That shift shows that cats were capable of participating in the task. Their restraint in the original trial appears to be driven by motivation, not inability.
The researchers also distinguished between behaviors driven by stimulus enhancement — attraction to movement or novelty — and those more consistent with prosocial intent, such as gaze alternation or fetching. Dogs and toddlers displayed both. Cats rarely did.
Evolutionary Roots of Cooperation in Dogs and Cats
The study doesn’t imply that cats are indifferent or incapable of forming strong bonds. Instead, it reveals a difference in how helping behavior is triggered. Dogs and toddlers engaged even when the situation offered no direct benefit. Cats became involved when the outcome aligned with their own interest.
By testing the three groups in the same scenario, the researchers isolate a key distinction. Dogs evolved from highly social ancestors that depended on coordination and cooperation within groups. Over thousands of years of domestication, selection likely reinforced sensitivity to human cues and collaborative responsiveness. Cats, by contrast, descended from solitary hunters that did not rely on group problem-solving. Their domestication did not center on cooperative work with humans.
The result is not a question of affection, but of evolutionary history. Dogs appear predisposed to respond to human goals as shared problems. Cats appear more selective about when to engage. The difference reflects the social systems their ancestors relied on long before either species entered our homes.
Read More: Your Dog Can Likely Recognize Your Face in a Photo — Here’s How We Know
Article Sources
Our writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:
