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.

Third-party interventions in dyadic play between littermates of domestic dogs, Canis lupus familiaris

Camille Ward, Rebecca Trisko, Barbara B. Smuts

Third-party interventions in dyadic play between littermates of domestic dogs, Canis lupus familiaris

Animal Behaviour, Volume 78, Issue 5, November 2009, Pages 1153–1160

ABTRACT

Interventions occur when animals interfere in competitive interactions between two or more individuals. Interveners can alter the nature of the ongoing interaction by targeting one party (attacking, biting) and supporting the other. Three theories have been proposed to account for intervention behaviour: kin selection, reciprocity and direct benefits. The kin selection hypothesis predicts that interveners will selectively support relatives over nonrelatives; the reciprocity hypothesis predicts that when intervener ‘A’ supports individual ‘B’, later ‘B’ will intervene and support ‘A’; and the direct benefits hypothesis predicts that target/support patterns should serve the immediate interests of the intervener. We tested the reciprocity and direct benefits hypotheses by exploring third-party interventions in play fighting among littermates of domestic dogs. Interveners in dyadic play did not preferentially target or support preferred playmates of the intervener. Interveners targeted the dog in the losing role at the time of the intervention, and they did not show reciprocity in support. Taken together, these last two findings suggest that littermates benefit directly and use interventions opportunistically to practise offence behaviours directed at littermates already behaving subordinately. Opportunities to practise targeting in a playful setting may help structure dominance relationships among littermates. Additionally, the tendency for puppies to do what the other is doing (target the dog in the losing role) may pave the way for synchronizing cooperative behaviours during group hunting and territorial defence. The types of behaviours used to intervene changed over development, but the outcome following an intervention remained stable.

Co-operative interactions between blind persons and their dogs

Sz Naderi, Á Miklósi, A Dóka, V Csányi

Co-operative interactions between blind persons and their dogs

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 74, Issue 1, 11 September 2001, Pages 59–80

Abstract

In two studies, we have investigated the co-operative behaviour between dogs and their owners. We supposed that co-operative behaviour is an inherited trait in dogs, and is a major contributing factor in the development of successful guide dog performance. According to our view, leading a blind person involves complex behaviour where success depends on the ability of the participants to synchronise their actions. In Study I, we observed both British and Hungarian blind owners taking a half-hour walk in their neighbourhood. In Study II, both guide dogs with their blind and pet dogs with their blind-folded owners had to master an obstacle course. Measuring the frequency of initiations of various actions during leading their owners, dogs did not keep the role of the initiator to themselves. However, both dogs and humans were found to initiate more often in some types of actions, for example, guide dogs initialised avoidance or stepping up more often than their owners. Further, the role of the initiator was kept only for short durations, longer sequences of initialising were rare.

Despite many differences among groups studied, we observed some qualitative similarities in the co-operative behaviour of dogs. We assume that during domestication, dogs have been selected for the ability to change to-and-fro the role of the initiator that seems to be fundamental in this type of co-operation. In the case of leading the blind, information should not only be provided but also accepted by both parties in the course of the joint actions, therefore, the leadership (the role of the initiator) may vary form one action to the next.

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Helene Pettersson, Juliane Kaminski, Esther Herrmann, Michael Tomasello

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 133, Issues 3–4, September 2011, Pages 235–245

Abstract

Chimpanzees find it easier to locate food when a human prohibits them from going to a certain location than when she indicates that location helpfully. Human children, in contrast, use the cooperative gesture more readily. The question here was whether domestic dogs are more like chimpanzees, in this regard, or more like human children. In our first study we presented 40 dogs with two communicative contexts. In the cooperative context the experimenter informed the subject where food was hidden by pointing helpfully (with a cooperative tone of voice). In the competitive context the experimenter extended her arm towards the correct location in a prohibitive manner, palm of hand out (uttering a forbidding command in a prohibitive tone of voice). Dogs were successful in the cooperative condition (P = 0.005) but chose randomly in the competitive condition (P = 0.221). The second study independently varied the two characteristics of the communicative gesture (the gesture itself and the tone of voice). In addition to replicating dogs’ better performance with the cooperative gestures, this study suggests that tone of voice and context had more effect than type of gesture. In the context of food acquisition, domestic dogs, like human children, seem more prepared to use human gestures when they are given cooperatively.

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Helene Pettersson, Juliane Kaminski, Esther Herrmann, Michael Tomasello

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 133, Issues 3–4, September 2011, Pages 235–245

Abstract

Chimpanzees find it easier to locate food when a human prohibits them from going to a certain location than when she indicates that location helpfully. Human children, in contrast, use the cooperative gesture more readily. The question here was whether domestic dogs are more like chimpanzees, in this regard, or more like human children. In our first study we presented 40 dogs with two communicative contexts. In the cooperative context the experimenter informed the subject where food was hidden by pointing helpfully (with a cooperative tone of voice). In the competitive context the experimenter extended her arm towards the correct location in a prohibitive manner, palm of hand out (uttering a forbidding command in a prohibitive tone of voice). Dogs were successful in the cooperative condition (P = 0.005) but chose randomly in the competitive condition (P = 0.221). The second study independently varied the two characteristics of the communicative gesture (the gesture itself and the tone of voice). In addition to replicating dogs’ better performance with the cooperative gestures, this study suggests that tone of voice and context had more effect than type of gesture. In the context of food acquisition, domestic dogs, like human children, seem more prepared to use human gestures when they are given cooperatively.