Do dogs (Canis familiaris) show contagious yawning?

We report an experimental investigation into whether domesticated dogs display contagious yawning. Fifteen dogs were shown video clips of (1) humans and (2) dogs displaying yawns and open-mouth expressions (not yawns) to investigate whether dogs showed contagious yawning to either of these social stimuli. Only one dog performed significantly more yawns during or shortly after viewing yawning videos than to the open-mouth videos, and most of these yawns occurred to the human videos. No dogs showed significantly more yawning to the open-mouth videos (human or dog). The percentage of dogs showing contagious yawning was less than chimpanzees and humans showing this behavior, and considerably less than a recently published report investigating this behavior in dogs (Joly-Mascheroni et al. in Biol Lett 4:446–448, 2008).     

Do chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) understand single invisible displacement?

Previous research suggests that chimpanzees understand single invisible displacement. However, this Piagetian task may be solvable through the use of simple search strategies rather than through mentally representing the past trajectory of an object. Four control conditions were thus administered to two chimpanzees in order to separate associative search strategies from performance based on mental representation. Strategies involving experimenter cue-use, search at the last or first box visited by the displacement device, and search at boxes adjacent to the displacement device were systematically controlled for. Chimpanzees showed no indications of utilizing these simple strategies, suggesting that their capacity to mentally represent single invisible displacements is comparable to that of 18-24-month-old children.     

Do dogs (Canis familiaris) seek help in an emergency?

The question of whether dogs recognize an emergency and understand the need to seek help from a bystander was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment, dogs' owners feigned a heart attack in an open field, and in the second experiment, dogs' owners experienced an accident in which a bookcase fell on them and pinned them to the floor. In these experiments, one or two bystanders were available to which dogs could go for help. The dogs' behavior was taped for 6 min after the owner had fallen and was later scored for the frequency and time the dogs spent performing different behaviors. In no case did a dog solicit help from a bystander. It is concluded that dogs did not understand the nature of the emergency or the need to obtain help.     

Do chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and 2-year-old children (Homo sapiens) understand double invisible displacement?

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and young children (Homo sapiens) have difficulty with double invisible displacements in which an object is hidden in two nonadjacent boxes in a linear array. Experiment 1 eliminated the possibility that chimpanzees' previous poor performance was due to the hiding direction of the displacement device. As in Call (2001), subjects failed double nonadjacent displacements, showing a tendency to select adjacent boxes. In Experiments 2 and 3, chimpanzees and 24-month-old children were tested on a new adaptation of the task in which four hiding boxes were presented in a diamond-shaped array on a vertical plane. Both species performed above chance on double invisible displacements using this format, suggesting that previous poor performance was due to a response bias or inhibition problem rather than a fundamental limitation in representational capacity.     

Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle

Organisms must often make predictions about the trajectories of moving objects. However, often these objects become hidden. To later locate such objects, the organism must maintain a representation of the object in memory and generate an expectation about where it will later appear. We explored adult dogs’ knowledge and use of the solidity principle (that one solid object cannot pass through another solid object) by evaluating search behavior. Subjects watched as a treat rolled down an inclined tube into a box. The box either did or did not contain a solid wall dividing it in half. To find the treat, subjects had to modify their search behavior based on the presence or absence of the wall, which either did or did not block the treat’s trajectory. Dogs correctly searched the near location when the barrier was present and the far location when the barrier was absent. They displayed this behavior from the first trial, as well as performed correctly when trial types were intermingled. These results suggest that dogs direct their searches in accordance with the solidity principle.     

Can domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use referential emotional expressions to locate hidden food?

Although many studies have investigated domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of human communicative cues, little is known about their use of humans’ emotional expressions. We conducted a study following the general paradigm of Repacholi in Dev Psychol 34:1017–1025, (1998) and tested four breeds of dogs in the laboratory and another breed in the open air. In our study, a human reacted emotionally (happy, neutral or disgust) to the hidden contents of two boxes, after which the dog was then allowed to choose one of the boxes. Dogs tested in the laboratory distinguished between the most distinct of the expressed emotions (Happy–Disgust condition) by choosing appropriately, but performed at chance level when the two emotions were less distinct (Happy–Neutral condition). The breed tested in the open air passed both conditions, but this breed’s differing testing setup might have been responsible for their success. Although without meaningful emotional expressions, when given a choice, these subjects chose randomly, their performance did not differ from that in the experimental conditions. Based on the findings revealed in the laboratory, we suggest that some domestic dogs recognize both the directedness and the valence of some human emotional expressions.     

How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing?

When apes are not fully understood by humans, they persist with attempts to communicate, elaborating their behaviours to better convey their meaning. Such abilities have never been investigated in dogs. The present study aimed to clarify any effect of the visual attentional state of the owner on dogs’ (Canis familiaris) social-communicative signals for interacting with humans, and to determine whether dogs persist and elaborate their behaviour in the face of failure to communicate a request. Gaze at a hidden target or at the owner, gaze alternation between a hidden target and the owner, vocalisations and contacts in 12 guide and 12 pet dogs were analysed (i) when the dogs were asked by their owners (blind or sighted) to fetch their inaccessible toy and (ii) when the dogs were subsequently given an unfamiliar object (apparent unsuccessful communication) or their toy (apparent successful communication). No group differences were found, indicating no effect of the visual status of the owner on the dogs’ socio-communicative modes (i.e. no sensitivity to human visual attention). Results, however, suggest that the dogs exhibited persistence (but not elaboration) in their “showing” behaviours in each condition, except that in which the toy was returned. Thus, their communication was about a specific item in space (the toy). The results suggest that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: (i) to get their inaccessible toy, the dogs gazed at their owners as if to trigger their attention; gaze alternation between the owner and the target direction, and two behaviours directed at the target were performed, apparently to indicate the location of the hidden toy; (ii) after the delivery of the toy, the dogs behaved as if they returned to the play routine, gazing at their owner whilst holding their toy. In conclusion, this study shows that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: they exhibit successive visual orienting between a partner and objects, apparent attention-getting behaviours, no sensitivity to the visual status of humans for communication, and persistence in (but no elaboration of) communicative behaviours when apparent attempts to “manipulate” the human partner fail.     

Meowing dogs: can dogs recognize cats in a cross-modal violation of expectancy task (Canis familiaris)?

Animal Cognition - Dogs can recognize conspecifics in cross-modal audio–video presentations. In this paper, we aimed at exploring if such capability extends to the recognition of cats, and...     

Familiarity-connected or stress-based contagious yawning in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)? Some additional data

The present short note aimed at further exploring data from a recent study showing socially modulated auditory contagious yawning in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Two independent observers further extended the analysis of all video recordings made in the previous study and coded both the number of yawns performed by the dogs and the frequencies or durations of stress-related behaviors exhibited throughout the presentation of familiar and unfamiliar yawns. By showing no significant difference between conditions in the frequencies or durations of the coded behaviors, nor any association between the number of yawns and the frequencies or durations of stress-related behaviors, results raised doubt on the stress-induced yawn hypothesis, thus supporting social modulation. The exact mechanism underlying contagious yawning, however, needs further research.     

Domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) choices in reference to information provided by human and artificial hands

Even young humans show sensitivity to the accuracy and reliability of informants’ reports. Children are selective in soliciting information and in accepting claims. Recent research has also investigated domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) sensitivity to agreement among human informants. Such research utilizing a common human pointing gesture to which dogs are sensitive in a food retrieval paradigm suggests that dogs might choose among informants according to the number of points exhibited, rather than the number of individuals indicating a particular location. Here, we further investigated dogs’ use of information from human informants using a stationary pointing gesture, as well as the conditions under which dogs would utilize a stationary point. First, we explored whether the number of points or the number of individuals more strongly influenced dogs’ choices. To this end, dogs encountered a choice situation in which the number of points exhibited toward a particular location and the number of individuals exhibiting those points conflicted. Results indicated that dogs chose in accordance with the number of points exhibited toward a particular location. In a second experiment, we explored the possibility that previously learned associations drove dogs’ responses to the stationary pointing gesture. In this experiment, dogs encountered a choice situation in which artificial hands exhibited a stationary pointing gesture toward or away from choice locations in the absence of humans. Dogs chose the location to which the artificial hand pointed. These results are consistent with the notion that dogs may respond to a human pointing gesture due to their past-learning history.     

Domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) choices in reference to agreement among human informants on location of food

When interacting with others, informants may offer conflicting information or information of varying accuracy. Recent research suggests that young children do not trust all informants equally and are selective in both whom they solicit for information and whose claims they support. We explored whether domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are similarly sensitive to agreement among informants. To this end, we utilized a common human gesture, pointing, to which recent research suggests dogs are sensitive. We conducted two experiments in which an experimenter secretly hid food in one of two clear containers while the dog was distracted. Next, a small group moved to indicate the food's location using stationary points positioned above the containers. In Experiment 1, two experimenters moved to stand behind the non-baited container, while a third experimenter moved to stand behind the baited container. Then, all directed one static point at the container in front of them. Experiment 2 exactly resembled Experiment 1 with the exception that the single experimenter standing behind the baited container directed two static points at the container (one with each hand). Dogs chose the container indicated by the majority in Experiment 1 significantly more often than chance, but chose the container indicated by the minority in Experiment 2 significantly more often than chance. This suggests that the number of points, not the number of people, more strongly influenced dogs' choices.     

A comparative approach to dogs’ (Canis familiaris) and human infants’ comprehension of various forms of pointing gestures

We investigated whether dogs and 2-, and 3-year-old human infants living, in some respects, in very similar social environments are able to comprehend various forms of the human pointing gesture. In the first study, we looked at their ability to comprehend different arm pointing gestures (long cross-pointing, forward cross-pointing and elbow cross-pointing) to locate a hidden object. Three-year-olds successfully used all gestures as directional cues, while younger children and dogs could not understand the elbow cross-pointing. Dogs were also unsuccessful with the forward cross-pointing. In the second study, we used unfamiliar pointing gestures i.e. using a leg as indicator (pointing with leg, leg cross-pointing, pointing with knee). All subjects were successful with leg pointing gestures, but only older children were able to comprehend the pointing with knee. We suggest that 3-year-old children are able to rely on the direction of the index finger, and show the strongest ability to generalize to unfamiliar gestures. Although some capacity to generalize is also evident in younger children and dogs, especially the latter appear biased in the use of protruding body parts as directional signals.     

Visual perspective taking by dogs (Canis familiaris) in a Guesser–Knower task: evidence for a canine theory of mind?

We tested domestic dogs (N = 16) in a Guesser–Knower task in which they chose between possible locations for hidden food indicated by human informants. In four experiments, the perceptual access of the Guesser and Knower to the hidden food baiting was manipulated. When informants had differing perceptual access to the baiting, dogs preferred the location indicated by the Knower from the start of testing (Experiment 1), even when baiting was done by a third experimenter (Experiments 2–3). However, when there was no difference in perceptual access and both informants either knew or did not know the food location, dogs had no preference between the informants (Experiment 4). Controls ruled out alternative explanations in terms of associative learning, unintentional and olfactory cues. Analysis of individual data showed no significant heterogeneity across dogs, and results were not correlated with age or sex. Dogs’ performances were superior to those of nonhuman primates in previous studies. Although a mentalistic explanation is not required, results add to evidence that dogs have a remarkable sensitivity to cues related to humans’ attentional state, which enables them to respond as if they had a functional theory of mind in the Guesser–Knower task with human informants.     

Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task

This study investigates the influence of owners on their dogs’ performance in a food choice task using either different or equal quantities of food. Fifty-four pet dogs were tested in three different conditions. In Condition 1 we evaluated their ability to choose between a large and small amount of food (quantity discrimination task). In Condition 2 dogs were again presented with a choice between the large and small food quantity, but only after having witnessed their owner favouring the small quantity. In Condition 3 dogs were given a choice between two equally small quantities of food having witnessed their owner favouring either one or the other. A strong effect of the owner on the dogs’ performance was observed. In Condition 1 dogs as a group chose significantly more often the large food quantity, thus showing their ability to solve the quantity discrimination task. After observing their owner expressing a preference for the small food quantity they chose the large quantity of food significantly less than in the independent choice situation. The tendency to conform to the owner’s choice was higher when the dogs had to choose between equally small quantities of food (Condition 3) rather than between a large and a small one (Condition 2). These results provide evidence that dogs can be influenced by their owners even when their indications are clearly in contrast with direct perceptual information, thus leading dogs to ultimately make counterproductive choices.     

Do children understand fraction addition?

Many children fail to master fraction arithmetic even after years of instruction. A recent theory of fraction arithmetic (Braithwaite, Pyke, & Siegler, 2017) hypothesized that this poor learning of fraction arithmetic procedures reflects poor conceptual understanding of them. To test this hypothesis, we performed three experiments examining fourth to eighth graders' estimates of fraction sums. We found that roughly half of estimates of sums were smaller than the same child's estimate of one of the two addends in the problem. Moreover, children's estimates of fraction sums were no more accurate than if they had estimated each sum as the average of the smallest and largest possible response. This weak performance could not be attributed to poor mastery of arithmetic procedures, poor knowledge of individual fraction magnitudes, or general inability to estimate sums. These results suggest that a major source of difficulty in this domain is that many children's learning of fraction arithmetic procedures develops unconstrained by conceptual understanding of the procedures. Implications for education are discussed.     

Do dogs resemble their owners?

Abstract— We examined whether the frequent casual reports of people resembling their pets are accurate by having observers attempt to match dogs with their owners. We further explored whether any ability of observers to make such matches is due to people selecting dogs who resemble them, in which case the resemblance should be greater for predictable purebreds than for nonpurebreds, or is due to convergence, in which case the resemblance should grow with duration of ownership. Forty-five dogs and their owners were photographed separately, and judges were shown one owner, that owner's dog, and one other dog, with the task of picking out the true match. The results were consistent with a selection account: Observers were able to match only purebred dogs with their owners, and there was no relation between the ability to pair a person with his or her pet and the time they had cohabited. The ability to match people and pets did not seem to rely on any simple trait matching (e.g., size or hairiness). The results suggest that when people pick a pet, they seek one that, at some level, resembles them, and when they get a purebred, they get what they want.     

Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners

Sixteen domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were tested in a familiar context in a series of 1-min trials on how well they obeyed after being told by their owner to lie down. Food was used in 1/3 of all trials, and during the trial the owner engaged in 1 of 5 activities. The dogs behaved differently depending on the owner's attention to them. When being watched by the owner, the dogs stayed lying down most often and/or for the longest time compared with when the owner read a book, watched TV, turned his or her back on them, or left the room. These results indicate that the dogs sensed the attentional state of their owners by judging observable behavioral cues such as eye contact and eye, head, and body orientation.     

Do infants understand simple arithmetic? A replication of Wynn (1992)

Numerical competence in 5-month-old infants is investigated using a violation-of-expectation paradigm. An experiment is reported which replicates the findings of Wynn (1992). In additional conditions, 5-month-olds are shown to be sensitive to impossible outcomes following addition or subtraction operations on small sets of objects, regardless of identity changes. Results support Wynn's interpretation that infants' responses are based on arithmetical ability. An alternative explanation, that infants' responses are based on their knowledge of the principles of physical object behavior, is also discussed.     

Do domestic dogs (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis lupus familiaris</Emphasis>) perceive the Delboeuf illusion?

In the last decade, visual illusions have been repeatedly used as a tool to compare visual perception among species. Several studies have investigated whether non-human primates perceive visual illusions in a human-like fashion, but little attention has been paid to other mammals, and sensitivity to visual illusions has been never investigated in the dog. Here, we studied whether domestic dogs perceive the Delboeuf illusion. In human and non-human primates, this illusion creates a misperception of item size as a function of its surrounding context. To examine this effect in dogs, we adapted the spontaneous preference paradigm recently used with chimpanzees. Subjects were presented with two plates containing food. In control trials, two different amounts of food were presented in two identical plates. In this circumstance, dogs were expected to select the larger amount. In test trials, equal food portion sizes were presented in two plates differing in size: if dogs perceived the illusion as primates do, they were expected to select the amount of food presented in the smaller plate. Dogs significantly discriminated the two alternatives in control trials, whereas their performance did not differ from chance in test trials with the illusory pattern. The fact that dogs do not seem to be susceptible to the Delboeuf illusion suggests a potential discontinuity in the perceptual biases affecting size judgments between primates and dogs.