Dogs, Canis familiaris, communicate with humans to request but not to inform

Dog communication motivation

Juliane Kaminski, Martina Neumann, Juliane Bräuer, Josep Call, Michael Tomasello

Dogs, Canis familiaris, communicate with humans to request but not to inform

Animal Behaviour, Volume 82, Issue 4, October 2011, Pages 651–658

ABSTRACT

Dogs are especially skilful at comprehending human communicative signals. This raises the question of whether they are also able to produce such signals flexibly, specifically, whether they helpfully produce indicative (‘showing’) behaviours to inform an ignorant human. In experiment 1, dogs indicated the location of an object more frequently when it was something they wanted themselves than when it was something the human wanted. There was some suggestion that this might be different when the human was their owner. So in experiment 2 we investigated whether dogs could understand when the owner needed helpful information to find a particular object (out of two) that they needed. They did not. Our findings, therefore, do not support the hypothesis that dogs communicate with humans to inform them of things they do not know.

Size communication in domestic dog, Canis familiaris, growls

Size Communication in Dogs

A.M. Taylor, D. Reby, K. McComb

Size communication in domestic dog, Canis familiaris, growls

Animal Behaviour, Volume 79, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 205–210

ABSTRACT

In many species, body size is a key determinant of the outcome of agonistic interactions, and receivers are expected to attend to size cues when assessing competitors' signals. Several mammal vocalizations, including domestic dog growls, encode reliable information about caller body size in the dispersion of formant frequencies. To test whether adult domestic dogs attend to formant dispersion when presented with the growls of their conspecifics, we played recordings of resynthesized growls where the size-related variation in formant frequency spacing was manipulated independently of all other parameters. Subjects from three different size groups (small, medium and large dogs) were presented with playbacks of growls where formant frequencies had been rescaled to correspond to a dog 30% smaller or 30% larger than themselves. While large dogs systematically displayed more motivation to interact when growls simulated a smaller intruder, small dogs did not respond differentially to the playback conditions. However, the small dogs responded significantly less than all other size groups to both playback conditions. Our results suggest that domestic dogs are able to perceive size-related information in growls, and more specifically that they are able to adapt their behavioural response as a function of the perceived intruder's size relative to their own.

Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog

Canine Eavesdropping 

S. Marshall-Pescini, C. Passalacqua, A. Ferrario, P. Valsecchi, E. Prato-Previde

Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog

Animal Behaviour, Volume 81, Issue 6, June 2011, Pages 1177–1183

ABSTRACT

Eavesdropping on third-party interactions has been observed in a number of species and is considered an important source of information in decision-making processes relating to fighting and mate choice. Human beings, however, use publicly available information flexibly in many different contexts including assessing others’ altruistic tendencies, which may in turn inform their choice of the most appropriate cooperative partner. We assessed whether dogs, Canis familiaris, were capable of discerning a generous versus selfish food-sharing interaction between humans, and investigated which communicative cues (voice versus gestures) may be more salient for them. Importantly a control condition was included to ascertain whether it was in fact the interaction between individuals as opposed to the direct actions of the actors that the dogs evaluated. We found that the dogs were capable of eavesdropping on human food-sharing interactions, and vocal communication was particularly important to convey the human’s cooperative versus noncooperative intent.

Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions

Effects of Breeding for Looks Rather than Behavior

Tammie King, Linda C. Marston, Pauleen C. Bennett

Breeding dogs for beauty and behaviour: Why scientists need to do more to develop valid and reliable behaviour assessments for dogs kept as companions

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 137, Issues 1–2, February 2012, Pages 1–12

Abstract

In the past, dogs were bred to perform specific utilitarian roles. Nowadays, the dog's most common role is that of human companion. Our world has changed dramatically since the first dog breeds were developed, yet many of these existing breeds remain popular as companions. While dogs kept as companions can provide a range of benefits to humans, in some cases the relationship between dog and human can be tenuous or even dangerous. Many dogs exhibit behaviours their owners consider undesirable and these dogs may cause disruption and injury to humans and other animals. As a consequence, many are relinquished to shelters. It is proposed that some of this unsuitable behaviour may be the result of inappropriate dog-owner matching, made more likely by the general change in the role of dogs, from working dog to companion animal, coupled with a strong tendency for modern owners and breeders to select dogs primarily on the basis of morphological, rather than behavioural, characteristics. This paper highlights how roles for dogs have changed and the importance of taking physical health and behaviour, as well as perceived beauty, into consideration when breeding and selecting dogs as companions. The measurement of behaviour and limitations of existing canine behaviour assessments are discussed. Finally, it is suggested that scientific development of accurate behavioural assessments, able to identify desirable canine behavioural traits, would provide invaluable tools for a range of dog-related organisations.

A comparison of dog–dog and dog–human play behaviour

Dog-Dog vs Human-Dog Playing

Nicola J Rooney, John W.S Bradshaw, Ian H Robinson

A comparison of dog–dog and dog–human play behaviour

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 66, Issue 3, 29 February 2000, Pages 235–248

Abstract

In the popular literature, it is often assumed that a single conceptual framework can be applied to both dog–dog and dog–human interactions, including play. We have, through three studies, tested the hypothesis that dog–dog and dog–human play are motivationally distinct. In an observational study of dogs being walked by their owners (N=402), dogs which were walked together, and had opportunities to play with one another, played with their owners with the same frequency as dogs being walked alone. This finding was supported by a questionnaire survey of 2585 dog owners in which dogs in multi-dog households played slightly more often with their owners than dogs in single-dog households. The performance of dog–dog play does not, therefore, seem to suppress the dogs' motivation to play with their owners as would be predicted if they were motivationally interchangeable. In an experimental comparison of dog–dog and dog–human toy-centred play, the dogs were more likely to give up on a competition, to show and present the toy to their play partner, if that partner was human. When two toys were available, dogs playing with other dogs spent less time showing interest in both toys and possessed one of the toys for longer, than dogs playing with people. Overall, the dogs were more interactive and less likely to possess the object when playing with a person. We conclude that dog–dog and dog–human play are structurally different, supporting the idea that they are motivationally distinct. We therefore suggest there is no reason to assume that the consequences of dog–dog play can be extrapolated to play with humans.

Prevalence of intestinal parasites in pet dogs in the United States

Intestinal Parasites in Dogs

Susan E. Little, Eileen M. Johnson, David Lewis, Renee P. Jaklitsch, Mark E. Payton, Byron L. Blagburn, Dwight D. Bowman, Scott Moroff, Todd Tams, Lon Rich, David Aucoin

Prevalence of intestinal parasites in pet dogs in the United States

Veterinary Parasitology, Volume 166, Issues 1–2, 3 December 2009, Pages 144–152

Abstract

To determine the national, regional, and age-related prevalence of intestinal parasites in dogs presenting to veterinarians in the United States, we reviewed the results of examination via zinc sulfate centrifugal flotation of 1,199,293 canine fecal samples submitted to Antech Diagnostics in 2006. The most commonly identified intestinal parasites were ascarids (2.2%), hookworms (2.5%), whipworms (1.2%), Giardia (4.0%), and Cystoisospora (4.4%). With the exception of whipworms, intestinal parasites were more commonly identified in dogs less than 6 months of age (29.6% positive) as compared to those greater than 1 year of age (6.1% positive) although infections with each parasite considered were identified in all age classes of dogs. Hookworm eggs were most commonly identified in fecal samples submitted from dogs from the South (4.0% positive), whereas ascarid eggs and Giardia cysts were most commonly seen in samples from dogs from the West (2.8% and 6.3% positive, respectively). When compared to previous data from shelter dogs, the prevalence of intestinal helminths, particularly ascarids and hookworms, was greatly suppressed in pet dogs in the southern United States (90–91% reduction) and much less so in dogs in the West (52–78% reduction), perhaps due in part to the routine year-round use of monthly anthelmintics effective at controlling both heartworm infection and intestinal helminths in dogs in the South. Taken together these data indicate that intestinal parasites remain a common, important finding in dogs presenting to veterinary practices although in most of the country infection rates in pet dogs appear to be greatly reduced from the level reported from dogs in animal shelters.

Dog behaviour on walks and the effect of use of the leash

Is this really necessary?

Carri Westgarth, Robert M. Christley, Gina L. Pinchbeck, Rosalind M. Gaskell, Susan Dawson, John W.S. Bradshaw

Dog behaviour on walks and the effect of use of the leash

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 125, Issues 1–2, June 2010, Pages 38–46

Abstract

This paper describes how often pet dogs interact with other dogs, people and the environment, whilst being walked. Such interactions may involve aggression or the transmission of infectious disease. We also assessed the effect of the use of a leash as a modifier of these outcomes. In study one, the behaviour of pet dogs being walked in popular public walking areas was observed (286 observations). Interactions with people were much rarer than interactions with dogs. Multivariable modelling suggested that percentage duration spent sniffing the ground was associated with the UK Kennel Club Breed Type, and whether the dog was observed urinating. Gundogs were observed to sniff more than other breed types. In study two, dogs (n = 10) were filmed twice walking along a pre-defined route, alternately once on leash and once off leash, in order to assess the effects of leash use on interactions between the subject dog and any other dog or person encountered. Multilevel modelling suggested that if either dog was on the leash, then the likelihood of an interaction with a dog occurring was reduced. There was no evidence for statistical interactions between these variables, therefore the effect of the leash on one dog did not seem to be influenced by whether the other dog was on or off leash. We conclude that in circumstances where interactions need to be prevented, such as to reduce spread of infectious diseases during an outbreak, both dogs should be leashed.