Effect of shared information and owner behavior on showing in dogs (Canis familiaris)

Exploring Levels of Interspecies Interaction: Expectations, Knowledge, and Empathy in Human-Dog Relationships

This exploratory study examines the complex dynamics of human-dog relationships and their impact on interspecies communication. Twelve human-dog dyads were studied using narrative interviews to explore how people perceive their relationships with their dogs. In addition, the dyads engaged in a cooperative task to observe interaction dynamics during everyday activities. This study shows that individual expectations frame interactions and that traditional notions of dog ownership are evolving into more family-like relationships. Effective communication relies on a nuanced mix of verbal and non-verbal cues, with empathy emerging as a fundamental element guiding these interactions. Our findings underline the profound influence of human expectations, knowledge and empathy on communication with dogs. They also highlight the critical role of compatibility between human and dog dyads, and emphasize that such compatibility is a key determinant of satisfaction in interspecies relationships. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how human factors modulate communication and satisfaction in human-animal interactions.

The influence of voice familiarity and linguistic content on dogs' ability to follow human voice direction

Domestic dogs are well-known for their abilities to utilize human referential cues for problem solving, including following the direction of human voice. This study investigated whether dogs can locate hidden food relying only on the direction of human voice and whether familiarity with the speaker (owner/stranger) and the relevance of auditory signal features (ostensive addressing indicating the intent for communication to the receiver; linguistic content) affect performance. N = 35 dogs and their owners participated in four conditions in a two-way object choice task. Dogs were presented with referential auditory cues representing different combinations of three contextual parameters: the (I) 'familiarity with the human informant' (owner vs. stranger), the (II) communicative function of attention getter (ostensive addressing vs. non-ostensive cueing) and the (III) 'tone and content of the auditory cue' (high-pitched/potentially relevant vs. low-pitched/potentially irrelevant). Dogs also participated in a 'standard' pointing condition where a visual cue was provided. Significant differences were observed between conditions regarding correct choices and response latencies, suggesting that dogs' response to auditory signals are influenced by the combination of content and intonation of the message and the identity of the speaker. Dogs made correct choices the most frequently when context-relevant auditory information was provided by their owners and showed less success when auditory signals were coming from the experimenter. Correct choices in the 'Pointing' condition were similar to the experimenter auditory conditions, but less frequent compared to the owner condition with potentially relevant auditory information. This was paralleled by shorter response latencies in the owner condition compared to the experimenter conditions, although the two measures were not related. Subjects' performance in response to the owner- and experimenter-given auditory cues were interrelated, but unrelated to responses to pointing gestures, suggesting that dogs' ability to understand the referential nature of auditory cues and visual gestures partly arise from different socio-cognitive skills.

When the owner does not know: comparing puppies and adult dogs' showing behavior

Domestic dogs have been shown to engage in interspecific communication with their owners using a flexible repertoire of signals (i.e., gaze, vocalizations, and postures). This ability is influenced by ontogenetic development as well as breed selection. Different aspects of this phenomenon have been studied using the out of reach/hidden object task in which a piece of food is shown to the dog and then hidden in an unreachable spot by the experimenter. Dogs' behavioral displays toward the target and the owner (ignorant about the location of the food) have been observed. The complex communicative behavior dogs exhibit in this context is defined as showing behavior and includes attention-getting components directed toward the owner, and directional components directed toward the target. No study has investigated the ontogenetic development of this behavior. In the current study, we compared the showing behavior in 4-6 month old puppies and 2-11 year old adults in an out of reach task involving the hiding of a food reward in one of two cabinets. Dogs were exposed to three conditions: (1) Owner with Food (OF), (2) Owner No Food (ONF), and (3) Alone with food (AF). Dogs showed more gaze alternations when both the food and the owner were present confirming the intentional and referential nature of this behavior. Contrary to our expectations, we found no differences between the showing behaviors of 4-6 month old puppies and adult dogs. This study provides interesting preliminary evidence of showing behavior in puppies. Further studies are needed to gain a deeper understanding of the factors influencing this communicative behavior (i.e., breed, level of training). Furthermore, longitudinal studies should be performed from the age of 2 months up to 1 and 2 years to better clarify the influence of development and experience on showing behavior in domestic dogs.

Out-of-reach rewards elicit human-oriented referential communicative behaviours in family dogs but not in family pigs

Human-oriented referential communication has been evidenced not only in domestic but also in some wild species, however, the importance of domestication-unrelated species' characteristics in the emergence of this capacity remains largely unexplored. One shared property of all species reported to exhibit referential communication is the efficient use of visual social signals. To assess the potential role of species-specific characteristics in the emergence of human-oriented referential communication, we compared similarly socialised companion animals from two domestic species: dogs, which rely heavily on conspecific visual social signals; and pigs, which do not. We used an out-of-reach reward paradigm with three conditions: both human and reward present, only human present, only reward present. Both species exhibited certain behaviours (e.g. orientation towards the human, orientation alternation between the human and the reward) more often in the human's presence. However, only dogs exhibited those behaviours more often in the simultaneous presence of the human and the reward. These results suggest similar readiness in dogs and pigs to attend to humans but also that pigs, unlike dogs, do not initiate referential communication with humans. The ability to referentially communicate with humans may not emerge in mammals, even if domesticated companion animals, that lack certain species characteristics, such as efficient intraspecific visual communication.

Warum die Vergleichende Psychologie auf den Hund gekommen ist

Zusammenfassung: Die Entwicklungspsychologie beschreibt ontogenetische Prozesse, bei denen es um zeitlich überdauernde, aufeinander aufbauende Veränderungen menschlichen Erlebens und Verhaltens über die gesamte Lebensspanne geht. In diesem Artikel erläutern wir den Zusammenhang zwischen ontogenetischen und phylogenetischen Prozessen, die das zentrale Forschungsinteresse der Vergleichenden Psychologie darstellen. Untersuchungsgegenstand sind hierbei Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen Menschen und verschiedenen Tierarten, die zum Beispiel Aufschluss über die Evolution von Kognition geben können. Hunde spielen dabei eine besondere Rolle: sie haben durch ihre lange Domestikationsgeschichte einzigartige Fähigkeiten in den Bereichen Kommunikation, Aufmerksamkeit und Kooperation erlangt. Durch die konvergente Entwicklung von Hund und Mensch durch den ähnlichen Selektionsdruck auf beide Spezies, kann man bei einigen dieser Eigenschaften sogar von menschenähnlichen Fähigkeiten sprechen.

The effects of distance on pointing comprehension in shelter dogs

The Object Choice Task is a methodology that has been increasingly popular for several decades and many strong claims have been made regarding the differential results between species. However, many studies use differing methodologies and individuals with systematically different backgrounds, which makes any comparisons suspect. One of the methodological differences that has been shown to result in differing responses is distance, both between the objects, and between the object and the gesture. Here, we systematically test these differences with a sample of shelter dogs and note the potential mechanisms underlying the results. Dogs were more successful if the objects were further apart (Distal Object) or the point was very close to the object (Proximal Cue). Success in both of these conditions can be most parsimoniously explained by mechanistic strategies, i.e. strategies that do not rely on mental representation or communicative mechanisms. We also note the results of some pilot data suggesting a non-communicative mechanism (body alignment through touch) by which shelter dogs and other animals may successfully respond when the objects and gestures are distant. We argue that the only point type that likely relies on communicative mechanisms is when the objects are close together, but the point is distant the condition in which dogs are least successful. Future research should take into consideration that individual dogs may use different strategies, or may switch between strategies, and note that all point-following is not necessarily indicative of communicative comprehension.

Dogs display owner-specific expectations based on olfaction

Most current knowledge about dogs’ understanding of, and reacting to, their environment is limited to the visual or auditory modality, but it remains unclear how olfaction and cognition are linked together. Here we investigate how domestic dogs search for their owners using their excellent olfactory sense. We raise the question whether dogs have a representation of someone when they smell their track. The question is what they expect when they follow a trail or whether they perceive an odour as a relevant or non-relevant stimulus. We adopted a classical violation-of-expectation paradigm—and as targets we used two persons that were both important to the dog, usually the owners. In the critical condition subjects could track the odour trail of one target, but at the end of the trail they find another target. Dogs showed an increased activity when the person did not correspond with the trail compared to a control condition. Moreover, we found huge individual differences in searching behaviour supporting the assumption that dogs are only able to smell when they really sniff, and that the temperature has an influence on dogs performance. Results are discussed in the light of how cognitive abilities, motivation and odour perception influence each other.

Showing behavior in Animal Assisted Intervention and pet dogs

A dog's behavior can indicate the location of hidden food to a human who is unaware of its position. These behavioral patterns are known as showing behavior, which comprise gazing towards the target location and gaze alternation between the human and the target (i.e., hidden food). Although this ability has been extensively studied in pet dogs, research has not yet focused on dogs with other kinds of life experiences, such as dogs working in Animal Assisted Interventions (AAI). These dogs are exposed to novel environments under the guidance of their handlers and previous studies have highlighted the importance of gazing behavior in this population. Therefore, we evaluated AAI and pet dogs on a showing task. Results indicate that dogs overall engaged in showing behavior as they gazed more towards the baited pot and alternated their gaze more on showing trials than control ones. Contrary to our expectations, differences between AAI and pet dogs were minimal. However, owners of AAI dogs were more successful than owners of pet dogs in finding the hidden food in showing trials. This suggests they may be more skillful in reading their dogs' behavior, which can be crucial to ensure their welfare during AAI sessions.