Learning and owner-stranger effects on interspecific communication in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Animal Cognition, 2008
Dogs have a remarkable skill to use humangiven cues in object-choice tasks, but little is known to what extent their closest wild-living relative, the wolf can achieve this performance. In Study 1, we compared wolf and dog pups hand-reared individually and pet dogs of the same age in their readiness to form eye-contact with a human experimenter in an object-choice task and to follow her pointing gesture. The results showed that dogs already at 4 months of age use momentary distal pointing to Wnd hidden food even without intensive early socialization. Wolf pups, on the contrary, do not attend to this subtle pointing. Accordingly in Studies 2 and 3, these wolves were tested longitudinally with this and four other (easier) human-given cues. This revealed that wolves socialized at a comparable level to dogs are able to use simple humangiven cues spontaneously if the human's hand is close to the baited container (e.g. touching, proximal pointing). Study 4 showed that wolves can follow also momentary distal pointing similarly to dogs if they have received extensive formal training. Comparing the wolves to naïve pet dogs of the same age revealed that during several months of formal training wolves can reach the level of dogs in their success of following momentary distal pointing in parallel with improving their readiness to form eyecontact with a human experimenter. We assume that the high variability in the wolves' communicative behaviour might have provided a basis for selection during the course of domestication of the dog.
Pointing following in dogs: are simple or complex cognitive mechanisms involved?
Animal Cognition
Domestic dogs have proved to be extremely successful in finding hidden food following a series of human social cues such as pointing (an extended hand and index finger indicating the location of the reward), or body position, among many other variants. There is controversy about the mechanisms responsible for these communicative skills in dogs. On the one hand, a hypothesis states that dogs have complex cognitive processes such as a theory of mind, which allow them to attribute intent to the human pointing gesture. A second, more parsimonious, hypothesis proposes that these skills depend on associative learning processes. The purpose of this paper is to provide data that may shed some light on the discussion by looking into two learning processes by using an object choice task: the effect of interference between stimuli on the preference for human social cues and the effect of generalization of the response to novel human social stimuli. The first study revealed that previous training using a physical cue (container location) may hamper the learning of a novel human social cue (distal cross-pointing). The results of the second study indicated stimulus generalization. Dogs learnt a novel cue (distal cross-pointing) faster due to previous experience with a similar cue (proximal pointing), as compared to dogs confronted by a less similar cue (body position) or dogs with no previous experience. In sum, these findings support the hypothesis about the important role of associative learning in interspecific communication mechanisms of domestic dogs.
Several studies have shown that domestic dogs respond to human social cues such as pointing. Some experiments have shown that pet dogs outperformed wolves in following a momentary distal point. These findings have lent support to the hypothesis that domestication is responsible for domestic dogs’ ability to utilize human gestures. Other studies demonstrating comparable performance in human-socialized wolves suggest this skill depends on experience with relevant human stimuli. However, domestic dogs lacking thorough exposure to humans are underrepresented in the comparative literature. The goal of this study was to evaluate pet and kennel-reared research domestic dogs on their ability to follow two types of point in an object-choice task. This study used young adult, intact male research dogs (n = 11) and a comparison group of pet dogs living in human homes (n = 9). We found that while pet dogs followed the momentary distal point above chance levels, research dogs did not. Both groups followed the simpler dynamic proximal point; however, pet dogs outperformed research dogs on this task. Our results indicate that ontogenetic experiences may influence a domestic dog's ability to use human gestures, highlighting the importance of testing different sub-populations of domestic dogs.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2018
Dogs are known to excel in interspecific communication with humans and both communicate with humans and follow human communicative cues. Two tests commonly used to test these skills are, firstly, the problem-solving paradigm, and, secondly, following human referential signals, for example pointing. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether dogs that seek more human contact in an unsolvable problem-solving paradigm also better understand human communicative cues in a pointing test. We also assessed between-and within-breed variation in both tests. 167 dogs were tested and were of the breeds German shepherd dog and Labrador retriever. The Labradors were separated into the two selection lines: common type (bred for show and pet) and field type (bred for hunting). A principal component analysis of behaviours during the problem solving revealed four components: Passivity, Experimenter Contact, Owner Contact and Eye Contact. We analysed the effect of these components on success rate in the pointing test and we found no effect for three of them, while a negative correlation was found for Owner Contact (F (1,147) = 6.892; P = 0.010). This was only present in common-typed Labradors. We conclude that the ability to follow a pointing cue does not predict the propensity for humandirected social behaviour in a problem-solving situation and suggest that the two tests measure different aspects of human-directed social behaviour in dogs.
Dogs (Canis familiaris) learn their owners via observation in a manipulation task
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2003
Eighty-seven pet dogs (Canis familiaris) were involved in an experiment in which they had to solve a task to obtain a ball. After witnessing a full demonstration by their owner (10 times pushing the handle of the box, which released a ball), most dogs preferred to touch the handle sooner and more frequently in comparison with other parts of the box, and they used the handle to get the ball. In contrast, dogs in 3 control groups developed their own respective methods. The lack of emergence of the ball and playing after the demonstration did not affect the learning performance strongly. This suggests that in dogs the outcome of a demonstration plays only a restricted role in the manifestation of social learning.
Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs
Animal Cognition, 1998
Since the observations of O. Pfungst the use of human-provided cues by animals has been well-known in the behavioural sciences ("Clever Hans effect"). It has recently been shown that rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) are unable to use the direction of gazing by the experimenter as a cue for finding food, although after some training they learned to respond to pointing by hand. Direction of gaze is used by chimpanzees, however. Dogs (Canis familiaris) are believed to be sensitive to human gestural communication but their ability has never been formally tested. In three experiments we examined whether dogs can respond to cues given by humans. We found that dogs are able to utilize pointing, bowing, nodding, headturning and glancing gestures of humans as cues for finding hidden food. Dogs were also able to generalize from one person (owner) to another familiar person (experimenter) in using the same gestures as cues. Baseline trials were run to test the possibility that odour cues alone could be responsible for the dogs' performance. During training individual performance showed limited variability, probably because some dogs already "knew" some of the cues from their earlier experiences with humans. We suggest that the phenomenon of dogs responding to cues given by humans is better analysed as a case of interspecific communication than in terms of discrimination learning.