Children and their pet dogs : How they communicate

Children and dogs

J.L. Millot, J.C. Filiatre, A.C. Gagnon, A. Eckerlin, H. Montagner

Children and their pet dogs : How they communicate

Behavioural Processes, Volume 17, Issue 1, July 1988, Pages 1–15

Abstract

The research of ethologists has provided a better understanding of the mechanisms, role and development of communication behaviour between young children and their peers. However, little is known about the communication systems between children and their pets. A study of these relational systems would be needed to understand how the child interacts with his whole environment.

The present study is based on the analysis of video tapes filmed during spontaneous interactions between children from 2 to 5 years of age with their pet dog (N = 45) in their home environment. Inventories were made of the child and dog behaviours during these interactions. The results have shown the different dog behaviours induced by the child and the different child behaviours induced by the dog. The links between these behaviours and the variables which characterize both partners (age, sex, etc.) were treated by factor analysis of correspondences. These data are discussed in relation to the behavioural inventories of children and dogs with their peers and conspecifics.

A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do

Ádám Miklósi, Enikö Kubinyi, József Topál, Márta Gácsi, Zsófia Virányi, Vilmos Csányi

A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do

Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 9, 29 April 2003, Pages 763–766

Abstract

The present investigations were undertaken to compare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparable levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing cues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not. Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face. Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has lead to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization.

Interrelationships of dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus L.) living under the same roof

N. Feuerstein, Joseph Terkel

Interrelationships of dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus L.) living under the same roof

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 113, Issues 1–3, September 2008, Pages 150–165

Abstract

In the process of domestication, dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus) have undergone thousands of years of genetic changes that have adapted them to the human environment. Both species have acquired a global distribution and it has become quite common to find homes with the two living side by side. Nevertheless, there is widespread belief that interspecific communication between dogs and cats is problematic, stemming from their separate evolutionary development and different social structures. Consequently, many people considering possible adoption of both species are concerned about their ability to get along.

Interrelationships of dogs and cats living together were studied here in an attempt to determine the main factors influencing the type of relationship likely to develop between the two species. Two approaches were used: (1) a questionnaire completed by owners of both dog(s) and cat(s), which provided a broad database of the animals’ behaviors; and (2) observations carried out in participants’ homes on their dog–cat interactions. Two separate ethograms for dogs and cats served for analyses of their body language. The findings revealed the following: Both species showed a similar ability to establish a relatively amicable relationship with the other species; the animals’ gender had little influence on the nature of their interrelationship; and adoption of the cat prior to the dog appears to conduce to establishing an amicable relationship, as does their first encounter taking place at an early age (up to 6 months of age in cats and up to 1 year in dogs). The findings also suggest that the majority of these dogs and cats understood the particular body language displayed by one animal that has an opposite meaning for the other species; and that the earlier the age of first encounter between the two, the better this understanding. It can be concluded that exposure of both species at an early age to the presence of the other facilitates the learning of each other's body language, and the consequent establishment of an amicable relationship. A better understanding of the various factors that contribute to determining the two species’ relationship should not only improve the quality of life of these pets, but also reassure and encourage more people to adopt both cat and dog.

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

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.

Learning and owner–stranger effects on interspecific communication in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Angel M. Elgier, Adriana Jakovcevic, Alba E. Mustaca, Mariana Bentosela

Learning and owner–stranger effects on interspecific communication in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Behavioural Processes, Volume 81, Issue 1, May 2009, Pages 44–49

Abstract

Domestic dogs are very successful at following human cues like gazing or pointing to find hidden food in an object choice task. They solve this kind of situation at their first attempts and from early stages of their development and perform better than wolves. Most of the authors proposed that these abilities are a domestication product, and independent from learning processes. There are few systematic studies on the effects of learning on dogs’ communicative skills. We aim to evaluate the effect of extinction and reversal learning procedures on the use of the pointing gesture in an object choice task. The results showed that dogs stopped following the pointing cue in the extinction and that they learned to choose the not pointed container in the reversal learning. Results suggest that instrumental learning plays an important role in interspecific communication mechanisms between humans and dogs. In both experiments for half of the subjects the pointer was the owner and for the rest was a stranger. A differential effect was found: extinction was slower but reversal learning was faster when the owner gave the cue. This data indicates that the relationship of the dog with the person who emits the cue influences performance.

Effect of reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Mariana Bentosela, Gabriela Barrera, Adriana Jakovcevic, Angel M. Elgier, Alba E. Mustaca

Effect of reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Behavioural Processes, Volume 78, Issue 3, July 2008, Pages 464–469

Abstract

There is a controversy about the mechanisms involved in the interspecific communicative behaviour in domestic dogs. The main question is whether this behaviour is a result of instrumental learning or higher cognitive skills are required. The present investigations were undertaken to study the effect of learning processes upon the gaze towards the human's face as a communicative response. To such purpose, in Study 1, gaze response was subjected to three types of reinforcement schedules: differential reinforcement, reinforcer omission, and extinction in a situation of “asking for food”. Results showed a significant increase in gaze duration in the differential reinforcement phase and a significant decrease in both the omission and extinction phases. These changes were quite rapid, since they occurred only after three training trials in each phase. Furthermore, extinction resulted in animal behaviour changes, such as an increase in the distance from the experimenter, the back position and lying behaviour. This is the first systematic evaluation of the behavioural changes caused by reward withdrawal (frustration) in dogs. In Study 2, the gaze response was studied in a situation where dogs walked along with their owners/trainers. These results show that learning plays an important role in this communicative response. The possible implications of these results for service dogs are discussed.

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.

Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face

Adriana Jakovcevic, Angel M. Elgier, Alba E. Mustaca, Mariana Bentosela

Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face

Behavioural Processes, Volume 84, Issue 2, June 2010, Pages 602–607

Abstract

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) have been submitted to a vast process of artificial selection and to date, there are hundreds of breeds that differ in their physical and behavioral features. In addition, dogs possess important skills to communicate with humans. Previous evidence indicates that those abilities are related to the domestication process and are modulated by instrumental learning processes. Very few studies, however, have evaluated breed differences in the use and learning of interspecific communicative responses. In Study 1 Retrievers, German Shepherds and Poodles were compared in the acquisition and extinction of their gaze toward the human face, in a conflict situation involving food within sight but out of reach. The groups did not differ in the acquisition of the response, but throughout the extinction phase Retrievers gazed to the human significantly more than the other groups. In Study 2, similar results were obtained in a test without any previous explicit training. These results suggest that these three major popular breeds differ in gazing to humans in a communicative situation.