Search This Blog

Saturday, October 27, 2012

A comparison of dog owners' claims about their pets' guilt with evidence from dog behavior



Damon Horowitz, Alexandra Horowitz
A comparison of dog owners' claims about their pets' guilt with evidence from dog behavior
Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 2, March–April 2009, Pages 104

ABSTRACT
New research on the social cognition of the domestic dog has established the dog's skill at interpreting communicative behavior of humans. By contrast, human interpretations of dog behavior rely heavily on anthropomorphisms, claims generally unverified by scientific research. The current research aims to examine behavior associated with one claim dog owners make of their dogs: “guilt” at doing a behavior that has been disallowed.
Previous research asking owners what they believed their dogs “know” found “disallowance” (disobedient acts) as the most frequent response. This study looks at dogs' behavior after doing or not doing a disallowed act, and after being scolded or greeted. We hypothesized that the data will match a model that suggests that dogs are responding to human behavior, but not a model suggesting dogs know a disallowed act is “wrong.”
Dogs and their owners participated in 5 videotaped trials each in the owners’ homes. Only dogs who obeyed commands of “sit,” “stay,” and “no” were used. Using owner report and prior behavioral descriptions of “guilt,” 8 guilt-related behaviors (GRBs) were isolated: avoiding eye contact, rolling over, low wag, ears back, head down, licking, retreat, and paw-up. In each trial, the owner showed the dog a treat, forbade eating it, and left the room. The owner returned in 30 seconds, was told whether the dog ate the treat, and was asked to act normally to greet or chastise the dog, as appropriate. To test the hypothesis that GRBs do not appear exclusively to doing a disallowed act, the trials varied the availability of the treat: a confederate removed the treat; let it be; or gave it to the dog. To test the hypothesis that GRBs are a response to owner chastising behavior, the trials varied the owners' knowledge of the dog's disobedience: guilty, owner knows; guilty, owner misinformed; not guilty, owner knows; not guilty, owner misinformed.
In every trial in which the treat was available, the dogs disobeyed and ate the treat. Rate of GRBs in all trials was scored. Preliminary analysis found no difference in the number of GRBs between disobedient and non-disobedient trials. By contrast, more GRBs were seen in trials when the owner scolded the dog, whether the dog had disobeyed or not. Confederate permission of the treat resulted in more GRBs than confederate removal of the treat.
In the context of a disallowed treat, dogs’ GRBs corresponded to the human's scolding of the dog, following discovery of the disallowed act or the belief that the act had occurred. GRBs were not more common when the dog did a disallowed act than when it had not. GRBs are similar to behaviors indicating fear and submission. In this study, dogs’ behavior was associated with the human, not the disallowed act or object, perhaps in fearful anticipation of punishment or scolding by the owner.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.