Preference for copying unambiguous demonstrations in dogs (Canis familiaris)

In an earlier study (P. Pongracz et al., 2001), it was shown that human demonstration significantly enhances the detouring ability of dogs (Canis familiaris) around a V-shaped fence. The authors investigated the effect of the direction of the demonstrated detour and the dogs' detouring experience. They found that dogs' trial-and-error experience influences strongly the direction of the dogs' detours later, even if the demonstrator showed detours along the opposite side of the fence. However, dogs' preferences based on their own experiences were changed when the dogs observed demonstrations only on 1 side of the fence. Dogs with no trial-and-error experience followed the direction of 1-sided demonstrations. The change from dogs' own directions to the demonstrated directions seems not to be due to simple facilitative effects of social experience; the similarity with the demonstrated action depends on complex interactions between individual experience and socially provided information.     

How does dominance rank status affect individual and social learning performance in the dog (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis familiaris</Emphasis>)?

Dogs can learn effectively to detour around a V-shaped fence after observing a demonstration from either an unfamiliar human or dog demonstrator. We found earlier that there is substantial individual variation between the dogs’ performance, even when using the same experimental conditions. Here, we investigate if the subjects’ relative dominance rank with other dogs had an effect on their social learning performance. On the basis of the owners’ answers to a questionnaire, subjects from multi-dog homes were sorted into groups of dominant and subordinate dogs. In Experiment 1, dominant and subordinate dogs were tested without demonstration and we did not find any difference between the groups—they had similarly low detour performances on their own. In Experiment 2 and 3, dogs from single dog and multi-dog households were tested in the detour task with demonstration by an unfamiliar dog, or human, respectively. The results showed that social learning performance of the single dogs fell between the dominant and subordinate multi-dogs with both dog and human demonstration. Subordinate dogs displayed significantly better performance after having observed a dog demonstrator in comparison to dominant dogs. In contrast, the performance of dominant and subordinate dogs was almost similar, when they observed a human demonstrator. These results suggest that perceived dominance rank in its own group has a strong effect on social learning in dogs, but this effect seems to depend also on the demonstrator species. This finding reveals an intricate organization of the social structure in multi-dog households, which can contribute to individual differences existing among dogs.     

Pet dogs synchronize their walking pace with that of their owners in open outdoor areas

Affiliation between interacting partners is associated with a high level of behavioural synchronization in many species. Pet dogs are known to share strong affiliative bonds with their owners and to synchronize their behaviour with them when moving freely indoors. Surprisingly, outdoor dog–human interspecific synchronization has seldom been investigated. We therefore explored whether, when allowed to move freely in a familiar outdoor space, dogs synchronize their behaviour with their owners’ movements. We found that dogs visibly synchronized both their location (staying in close proximity) and their activity (moving when their owner moved, and at the same pace, and standing still when their owner stood still) with those of their owners. By demonstrating that owners act as attractors for their dogs in an outdoor space, the present study contributes new data to the understanding of interspecific behavioural synchronization.     

Minding the gap: spatial perseveration error in dogs

We investigated a combination of perseveration and detour behaviour in 50 domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). They were required to make a detour through a gap at one end of a straight barrier in order to reach a target. After one, two, three or four repeats, the gap was moved to the opposite end of the barrier, and the detour behaviour of the dogs was recorded. Although the dogs could solve simple detour tasks (80% correct in the first trial), they committed a perseveration error of following the previously learned route despite the clearly visible change in the location of the gap. This ‘misbehaviour’ occurred in 29 of 30 dogs after only two learning trials. They never reached a 100% correct performance level again even after four runs through the second gap location. The results suggest that dogs are reluctant to unlearn acquired spatial motor responses and reinforced navigation, which has important implications for experimental design, everyday dog training and our understanding of their mental capacities.     

Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions

Dogs have a unique ability to understand visual cues from humans. We investigated whether dogs can discriminate between human facial expressions. Photographs of human faces were used to test nine pet dogs in two-choice discrimination tasks. The training phases involved each dog learning to discriminate between a set of photographs of their owner’s smiling and blank face. Of the nine dogs, five fulfilled these criteria and were selected for test sessions. In the test phase, 10 sets of photographs of the owner’s smiling and blank face, which had previously not been seen by the dog, were presented. The dogs selected the owner’s smiling face significantly more often than expected by chance. In subsequent tests, 10 sets of smiling and blank face photographs of 20 persons unfamiliar to the dogs were presented (10 males and 10 females). There was no statistical difference between the accuracy in the case of the owners and that in the case of unfamiliar persons with the same gender as the owner. However, the accuracy was significantly lower in the case of unfamiliar persons of the opposite gender to that of the owner, than with the owners themselves. These results suggest that dogs can learn to discriminate human smiling faces from blank faces by looking at photographs. Although it remains unclear whether dogs have human-like systems for visual processing of human facial expressions, the ability to learn to discriminate human facial expressions may have helped dogs adapt to human society.     

Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human

Pet dogs (Canis familiaris) learn to detour a V-shaped fence effectively from an unfamiliar human demonstrator. In this article, 4 main features of the demonstrator's behavior are highlighted: (a) the manipulation of the target, (b) the familiarity of the demonstrator, (c) the role of verbal attention-getting behavior, and (d) whether a strange trained dog could also be an effective demonstrator. The results show that the main factor of a successful human demonstration is the continuous verbal communication with the dog during detouring. It was also found that an unfamiliar dog demonstrator was as efficient as the unfamiliar experimenter. The experiments provide evidence that in adult dogs, communicative context with humans is needed for effective interspecific social learning to take place.     

Sizing up physical activity: The relationships between dog characteristics,dog owners' motivations,and dog walking

ObjectiveRegular dog walking is likely a symbiotic relationship between the needs of the dog and its owner. This relationship has seen limited attention. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between dog characteristics, dog owners' perceptions of responsibility and attachment to their dogs, and the qualities of dog owner exercise motivations (self-determined regulations) with dog walking behavior.MethodParticipants were 228 adult dog owners who completed an online survey that included demographics, dog walking, dog responsibility/attachment and exercise regulations.ResultsUsing mediation procedures, the results showed that the owner's sense of dog walking responsibility and walking relationship was completely mediated by identified (indirect β = .06; bootstrapped lower CI = .02, bootstrapped higher CI = .17) and intrinsic (β = .05; bootstrapped lower CI = .01, bootstrapped higher CI = .15) regulations but these regulations could not account for substantial variance in the dog-related factors. Instead, intrinsic regulation (β = .27), identified regulation (β = .20), dog size (β = .22), and energy level of the dog (β = .13) all contributed to explain 30% of walking behavior.ConclusionA sense of responsibility to walk the dog, generally the most reliable correlate in past dog walking research, appears to align with more self-determined forms of motivation than controlled. The findings, however, support the premise that dog walking behavior may be a complex mix of human and dog-related factors. This dog and owner relationship may need consideration for successful future dog walking promotion initiatives.     

Dogs don't always prefer their owners and can quickly form strong preferences for certain strangers over others.

The unique relationship between dog and owner has been demonstrated in several experimental procedures, including tests in which dogs are left alone or with a stranger, tests of dogs’ appeasement or social approach when petted by their owner or a stranger, and their ability to learn when taught by their owner or a stranger. In all cases, dogs responded differently to their owner, which has been referred to as a specific attachment, and likely a product of a prolonged history of reinforcement. In the current study, we used a concurrent choice paradigm in which dogs could interact with two people, both of whom provided the same petting interaction, to test whether owned dogs would prefer their owner over a stranger and whether the familiarity of the testing context would influence preference. We also investigated whether shelter and owned dogs tested with two strangers would show a preference between strangers and whether that preference would be similar in magnitude to any preference between the owner and stranger. Owned dogs preferred to interact with their owners when in an unfamiliar context, but allocated more time to the stranger in a familiar context. Both shelter and owned dogs tested with two strangers showed a magnitude of preference for one stranger over the other similar to owned dogs’ preference for owners in an unfamiliar context. These results parallel what has been found in strange situation tests with owned dogs tested with their owners, but the strength of preference shown for one of two strangers indicates dogs can form a preference for one person quickly.     

Social referencing in dog-owner dyads?

Social referencing is the seeking of information from another individual to form one’s own understanding and guide action. In this study, adult dogs were tested in a social referencing paradigm involving their owner and a potentially scary object. Dogs received either a positive or negative message from the owner. The aim was to evaluate the presence of referential looking to the owner, behavioural regulation based on the owner’s (vocal and facial) emotional message and observational conditioning following the owner’s actions towards the object. Most dogs (83%) looked referentially to the owner after looking at the strange object, thus they appear to seek information about the environment from the human, but little differences were found between dogs in the positive and negative groups as regards behavioural regulation: possible explanations for this are discussed. Finally, a strong effect of observational conditioning was found with dogs in the positive group moving closer to the fan and dogs in the negative group moving away, both mirroring their owner’s behaviour. Results are discussed in relation to studies on human–dog communication, attachment and social learning.     

Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog

Despite earlier scepticism there is now evidence for simple forms of intentional and functionally referential communication in many animal species. Here we investigate whether dogs engage in functional referential communication with their owners. “Showing” is defined as a communicative action consisting of both a directional component related to an external target and an attention-getting component that directs the attention of the perceiver to the informer or sender. In our experimental situation dogs witness the hiding of a piece of food (or a favourite toy) which they cannot get access to. We asked whether dogs would engage in “showing” in the presence of their owner. To control for the motivational effects of both the owner and the food on the dogs’ behaviour, control observations were also staged where only the food (or the toy) or the owner was present. Dogs’ gazing frequency at both the food (toy) and the owner was greater when only one of these was present. In other words, dogs looked more frequently at their owner when the food (toy) was present, and they looked more at the location of the food (toy) when the owner was present. When both the food (toy) and the owner were present a new behaviour, “gaze alternation”, emerged which was defined as changing the direction of the gaze from the location of the food (toy) to looking at the owner (or vice versa) within 2 s. Vocalisations that occurred in this phase were always associated with gazing at the owner or the location of the food. This behaviour, which was specific to this situation, has also been described in chimpanzees, a gorilla and humans, and has often been interpreted as a form of functionally referential communication. Based on our observations we argue that dogs might be able to engage in functionally referential communication with their owner, and their behaviour could be described as a form of “showing”. The contribution of domestication and individual learning to the well-developed communicative skills in dogs is discussed and will be the subject of further studies. Received: 3 April 2000 / Accepted after revision: 2 September 2000     

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.     

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.     

Examining dog–human play: the characteristics,affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction

Despite the growing interest in research on the interaction between humans and dogs, only a very few research projects focus on the routines between dogs and their owners. In this study, we investigated one such routine: dog–human play. Dyadic interspecific play is known to be a common interaction between owner and charge, but the details of what counts as play have not been thoroughly researched. Similarly, though people represent that “play” is pleasurable, no study has yet undertaken to determine whether different forms of play are associated with different affective states. Thus, we aimed to generate an inventory of the forms of dyadic play, the vocalizations within play, and to investigate the relationship of affect to elements of play. Via a global citizen science project, we solicited videotapes of dog–human play sessions from dog owners. We coded 187 play bouts via frame-by-frame video playback. We then assessed the relationship between various intra-bout variables and owner affect (positive or neutral) during play (dog affect was overwhelmingly positive). Amount of physical contact (“touch”), level of activity of owner (“movement”), and physical closeness of dog–owner dyad (“proximity”) were highly correlated with positive affect. Owner vocalizations were found to contain different elements in positive- and neutral-affect play. One novel category of play, “tease”, was found. We conclude that not all play is created equal: the experience of play to the owner participant is strongly related to a few identifiable characteristics of the interaction.     

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.     

Do dogs exhibit jealous behaviors when their owner attends to their companion dog?

Jealousy appears to have clear adaptive functions across species: it emerges when an important social relationship with a valued social partner is threatened by third-party that is perceived as a rival. Dyads of dogs living together and their owners were tested adapting a procedure devised to study jealousy in young human siblings. Owners at first ignored both dogs while reading a magazine (Control episode), and then petted and praised one of the dogs while ignoring the other, and vice versa (Experimental episodes). We found several differences in the dogs’ behavior between the Experimental episodes and the Control episode, even though only monitoring (gazing at the owner) was exhibited for a significantly greater amount of time in the Experimental episodes. Remarkable individual behavioral differences emerged, suggesting that the dogs’ reactions could be influenced by the relationships that they establish with their owner and the companion dog. Overall, current results do not clearly support our prediction that the ignored dogs would exhibit more behaviors aimed at regaining the owner’s attention when their owner directed attention and care to a companion dog, compared to the control situation. The great intra- and inter-dyad behavioral variability and the choice to test cohabiting dogs could have prevented the emergence of a clear jealous reaction. These findings do not exclude that dogs may exhibit a primordial form of jealousy in a realistic situation, but an additional research is needed to fully gauge which situations, if any, could trigger jealousy in dogs and to rule out alternative explanations.     

Reproducing human actions and action sequences: “Do as I Do!” in a dog

We present evidence that a dog (Philip, a 4-year-old tervueren) was able to use different human actions as samples against which to match his own behaviour. First, Philip was trained to repeat nine human-demonstrated actions on command (‘Do it!’). When his performance was markedly over chance in response to demonstration by one person, testing with untrained action sequences and other demonstrators showed some ability to generalise his understanding of copying. In a second study, we presented Philip with a sequence of human actions, again using the ‘Do as I do’ paradigm. All demonstrated actions had basically the same structure: the owner picked up a bottle from one of six places; transferred it to one of the five other places and then commanded the dog (‘Do it!’). We found that Philip duplicated the entire sequence of moving a specific object from one particular place to another more often than expected by chance. Although results point to significant limitations in his imitative abilities, it seems that the dog could have recognized the action sequence, on the basis of observation alone, in terms of the initial state, the means, and the goal. This suggests that dogs might acquire abilities by observation that enhance their success in complex socio-behavioural situations.This contribution is part of the special issue “Animal Logics” (Watanabe and Huber 2006).     

How do guide dogs of blind owners and pet dogs of sighted owners (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis familiaris</Emphasis>) ask their owners for food?

Although there are some indications that dogs (Canis familiaris) use the eyes of humans as a cue during human-dog interactions, the exact conditions under which this holds true are unclear. Analysing whether the interactive modalities of guide dogs and pet dogs differ when they interact with their blind, and sighted owners, respectively, is one way to tackle this problem; more specifically, it allows examining the effect of the visual status of the owner. The interactive behaviours of dogs were recorded when the dogs were prevented from accessing food that they had previously learned to access. A novel audible behaviour was observed: dogs licked their mouths sonorously. Data analyses showed that the guide dogs performed this behaviour longer and more frequently than the pet dogs; seven of the nine guide dogs and two of the nine pet dogs displayed this behaviour. However, gazing at the container where the food was and gazing at the owner (with or without sonorous mouth licking), gaze alternation between the container and the owner, vocalisation and contact with the owner did not differ between groups. Together, the results suggest that there is no overall distinction between guide and pet dogs in exploratory, learning and motivational behaviours and in their understanding of their owner's attentional state, i.e. guide dogs do not understand that their owner cannot see (them). However, results show that guide dogs are subject to incidental learning and suggest that they supplemented their way to trigger their owners' attention with a new distal cue.     

Functionally referential and intentional communication in the domestic dog: effects of spatial and social contexts

In apes, four criteria are set to explore referential and intentional communication: (1) successive visual orienting between a partner and distant targets, (2) the presence of apparent attention-getting behaviours, (3) the requirement of an audience to exhibit the behaviours, and (4) the influence of the direction of attention of an observer on the behaviours. The present study aimed at identifying these criteria in behaviours used by dogs in communicative episodes with their owner when their toy is out of reach, i.e. gaze at a hidden target or at the owner, gaze alternation between a hidden target and the owner, vocalisations and contacts. In this study, an additional variable was analysed: the position of the dog in relation to the location of the target. Dogs witnessed the hiding of a favourite toy, in a place where they could not get access to. We analysed how dogs engaged in communicative deictic behaviours in the presence of their owner; four heights of the target were tested. To control for the motivational effects of the toy on the dogs’ behaviour and for the referential nature of the behaviours, observations were staged where only the toy or only the owner was present, for one of the four heights. The results show that gazing at the container and gaze alternation were used as functionally referential and intentional communicative behaviours. Behavioural patterns of dog position, the new variable, fulfilled the operational criteria for functionally referential behaviour and a subset of operational criteria for intentional communication: the dogs used their own position as a local enhancement signal. Finally, our results suggest that the dogs gazed at their owner at optimal locations in the experimental area, with respect to the target height and their owner’s (or their own) line of gaze.     

Dogs recall their owner's face upon hearing the owner's voice

We tested whether dogs have a cross-modal representation of human individuals. We presented domestic dogs with a photo of either the owner's or a stranger's face on the LCD monitor after playing back a voice of one of those persons. A voice and a face matched in half of the trials (Congruent condition) and mismatched in the other half (Incongruent condition). If our subjects activate visual images of the voice, their expectation would be contradicted in Incongruent condition. It would result in the subjects’ longer looking times in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. Our subject dogs looked longer at the visual stimulus in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. This suggests that dogs actively generate their internal representation of the owner's face when they hear the owner calling them. This is the first demonstration that nonhuman animals do not merely associate auditory and visual stimuli but also actively generate a visual image from auditory information. Furthermore, our subject also looked at the visual stimulus longer in Incongruent condition in which the owner's face followed an unfamiliar person's voice than in Congruent condition in which the owner's face followed the owner's voice. Generating a particular visual image in response to an unfamiliar voice should be difficult, and any expected images from the voice ought to be more obscure or less well defined than that of the owners. However, our subjects looked longer at the owner's face in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. This may indicate that dogs may have predicted that it should not be the owner when they heard the unfamiliar person's voice.     

Spatial learning in pigs: effects of environmental enrichment and individual characteristics on behaviour and performance

This study investigated the effects of both environmental enrichment and individual behavioural characteristics on spatial cognitive capabilities of pigs, using a novel latent spatial learning paradigm based on Tolman’s detour experiments (1948). Pigs were housed either in ‘barren’ pens or in pens enriched with straw bedding from birth. Pigs were restrained in a Backtest at 10 and 17 days postpartum. Based on their escape behaviour in this test, which has been shown to reflect their behavioural style, six ‘high-resisting’(HR) and six ‘low-resisting’ (LR) pigs were selected from each housing environment (n = 24 in total). At 12 weeks of age, pairs of pen mates (LR and HR) were exposed to a maze three times (exploration trials). Pigs were then placed individually in the maze, and social reinstatement proved to be a strong incentive to find the exit leading to the home pen. We subsequently blocked the direct route to the exit, forcing animals to find a detour (memory test 1, MT1). This test was repeated once to investigate the relative improvement, i.e. detour learning (memory test 2, MT2). Housing condition and Backtest response strongly affected exploration patterns. In spite of this, no effects on performance during the subsequent memory tests were found. Performance was substantially improved in MT2, indicating that once a goal is apparent, pigs are able to solve a complex spatial memory task easily. In conclusion, social reinstatement provided a good incentive to complete a spatial task, and the substantial improvement in performance between MT1 and MT2 stresses the need for task complexity when testing spatial memory in pigs. Housing conditions or individual behavioural style did not affect spatial memory during MT1 or MT2. However, housing environment and behavioural style strongly affected explorative behaviour of pigs in an unfamiliar maze during both exploration trials and memory tests. This implicates that apparent effects of environmental enrichment on spatial learning and memory in pigs might reflect differences in explorative patterns rather than in cognitive processes.