Article

Do dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) make counterproductive choices because they are sensitive to human ostensive cues?

Department of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.73). 01/2012; 7(4):e35437. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035437
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Dogs appear to be sensitive to human ostensive communicative cues in a variety of situations, however there is still a measure of controversy as to the way in which these cues influence human-dog interactions. There is evidence for instance that dogs can be led into making evaluation errors in a quantity discrimination task, for example losing their preference for a larger food quantity if a human shows a preference for a smaller one, yet there is, so far, no explanation for this phenomenon. Using a modified version of this task, in the current study we investigated whether non-social, social or communicative cues (alone or in combination) cause dogs to go against their preference for the larger food quantity. Results show that dogs' evaluation errors are indeed caused by a social bias, but, somewhat contrary to previous studies, they highlight the potent effect of stimulus enhancement (handling the target) in influencing the dogs' response. A mild influence on the dog's behaviour was found only when different ostensive cues (and no handling of the target) were used in combination, suggesting their cumulative effect. The discussion addresses possible motives for discrepancies with previous studies suggesting that both the intentionality and the directionality of the action may be important in causing dogs' social biases.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
103 Views
  • Source
    Advances in the Study of Behavior 01/2013; 45:209-406. · 3.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dogs are strongly influenced by human behavior, and they readily form bonds with specific humans. Yet these lines of inquiry are not often combined. The goal of this study was to investigate whether such bonds would play a role in how dogs behave in response to human signals. Using various types of signals, we compared dogs' use of information from a familiar human (their owner) versus an unfamiliar human when choosing between two food containers. In some conditions, the owner indicated a container that gave food and a stranger indicated a container that did not; in other conditions, this was reversed. Dogs more often chose the container indicated by or nearest to their owner, even when this container never yielded a food reward. In two conditions, dogs chose at chance: a control condition in which both pointers were strangers and a condition in which the owner and stranger sat reading books and provided no social signal. This is the first study to directly compare owners to strangers in a single food-choice situation. Our results suggest that dogs make decisions by attending preferentially to social signals from humans with whom they have become familiar.
    Animal Cognition 08/2013; · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Anne Hertel, Juliane Kaminski, Michael Tomasello
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent studies have raised the question of whether dogs, like human infants, comprehend an established rule as generalizable, normative knowledge or rather as episodic information, existing only in the immediate situation. In the current study we tested whether dogs disobeyed a prohibition to take a treat (i) in the presence of the communicator of the ban, (ii) after a temporary absence of the communicator, and (iii) in the presence of a novel person. Dogs disobeyed the rule significantly more often when the communicator left the room for a moment or when they were faced with a new person, than when she stayed present in the room. These results indicate that dogs ''forget'' a rule as soon as the immediate human context becomes disrupted. Citation: Hertel A, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2014) Generalize or Personalize -Do Dogs Transfer an Acquired Rule to Novel Situations and Persons? PLoS ONE 9(7): e102666. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102666 Copyright: ß 2014 Hertel et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: Juliane Kaminski was funded by a grant from the Volkswagenstiftung (http://www.volkswagen-stiftung.de/). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; · 3.73 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
80 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014