Abstract
The still-face effect has been extensively studied in human infants and comprises the reduction in affiliative behaviors and increased stress that occurs after a sudden interruption of social interaction with a caregiver. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are model candidates for showing this effect, as they form deep bonds with their owners and interspecific social interaction is reinforcing to them. The aim of these studies was to assess if companion dogs exhibit the still-face effect and whether prior experiences during ontogeny modulate this effect. To this end, Study 1 compared dogs with different levels of training (untrained, intermediate, and advanced), while Study 2 assessed dogs that participated in Animal Assisted Interventions (AAIs) and companion dogs (CDs). The procedure was carried out virtually and comprised three phases lasting 1 min: interaction, still-face (the owner turned suddenly indifferent), and reunion (the interaction was resumed). Dogs exhibited a decrease in proximity to and contact with the owner, as well as an increase in begging and stress behaviors during the still-face phase. Moreover, this was not observed in a control condition in which the interaction continued in the same way during all three phases, discarding alternative explanations for these changes. These results show that dogs experience a still-face effect in a similar way to infants, highlighting the value interspecific social interaction has for dogs. Nevertheless, the absence of differences according to their training level or participation in AAIs suggests this is a robust phenomenon, which appears to be less susceptible to the influences of ontogenetic experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
References
Adamson, L. B., & Frick, J. E. (2003). The still face: A history of a shared experimental paradigm. Infancy, 4(4), 451–473. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0404_01
Barrera, G., Guillén-Salazar, F., & Bentosela, M. (2021). Still-face effect in dogs (Canis familiaris). A pilot study. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1923493
Barrera, G., Jakovcevic, A., Elgier, A. M., Mustaca, A., & Bentosela, M. (2010). Responses of shelter and pet dogs to an unknown human. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 5(6), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2010.08.012
Bennett, P. C., & Rohlf, V. I. (2007). Owner-companion dog interactions: Relationships between demographic variables, potentially problematic behaviours, training engagement and shared activities. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(1–2), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.009
Brubaker, L., & Udell, M. A. R. (2018). The effects of past training, experience, and human behaviour on a dog’s persistence at an independent task. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 204, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2018.04.003
Carballo, F., Cavalli, C. M., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á., & Kubinyi, E. (2020). Assistance and therapy dogs are better problem solvers than both trained and untrained family dogs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 7, 164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00164
Cavalli, C., Carballo, F., Dzik, M. V., & Bentosela, M. (2020a). Gazing as a help requesting behavior: A comparison of dogs participating in animal-assisted interventions and pet dogs. Animal Cognition, 23(1), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01324-8
Cavalli, C., Carballo, F., Dzik, M. V., & Bentosela, M. (2020b). Showing behavior in animal assisted intervention and pet dogs. Behavioural Processes, 179(104218), 104218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2020.104218
Cavalli, C. M., Carballo, F., Dzik, M. V., & Bentosela, M. (2019). Persistence in learned responses: A comparison of animal assisted intervention and pet dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 34, 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2019.07.008
Cavalli, C. M., Carballo, F., Dzik, M. V., Underwood, S., & Bentosela, M. (2018). Are animal-assisted activity dogs different from pet dogs? A comparison of their sociocognitive abilities. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 23, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.12.001
Cook, P. F., Prichard, A., Spivak, M., & Berns, G. S. (2016). Awake canine fMRI predicts dogs’ preference for praise vs food. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(12), 1853–1862. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw102
Cunningham, C. L., & Ramos, M. F. (2014). Effect of training and familiarity on responsiveness to human cues in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 17(3), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0714-z
D’Aniello, B., Alterisio, A., Scandurra, A., Petremolo, E., Iommelli, M. R., & Aria, M. (2017). What’s the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures. Animal Cognition, 20(4), 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1098-2
D’Aniello, B., & Scandurra, A. (2016). Ontogenetic effects on gazing behaviour: A case study of kennel dogs (Labrador retrievers) in the impossible task paradigm. Animal Cognition, 19(3), 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0958-5
D’Aniello, B., Scandurra, A., Prato-Previde, E., & Valsecchi, P. (2015). Gazing toward humans: A study on water rescue dogs using the impossible task paradigm. Behavioural Processes, 110, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.022
Duranton, C., Bedossa, T., & Gaunet, F. (2017). Interspecific behavioural synchronization: Dogs exhibit locomotor synchrony with humans. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 12384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12577-z
Fallani, G., Prato Previde, E., & Valsecchi, P. (2007). Behavioral and physiological responses of guide dogs to a situation of emotional distress. Physiology & Behavior, 90(4), 648–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.12.001
Fallani, G., Previde, E. P., & Valsecchi, P. (2006). Do disrupted early attachments affect the relationship between guide dogs and blind owners? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(3–4), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.005
Feuerbacher, E. N., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2012). Relative efficacy of human social interaction and food as reinforcers for domestic dogs and hand-reared wolves. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 98(1), 105–129. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2012.98-105
Feuerbacher, E. N., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2016). Application of functional analysis methods to assess human-dog interactions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(4), 970–974. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.318
Firnkes, A., Bartels, A., Bidoli, E., & Erhard, M. (2017). Appeasement signals used by dogs during dog–human communication. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2016.12.012
Fonberg, E., Kostarczyk, E., & Prechtl, J. (1981). Training of instrumental responses in dogs socially reinforced by humans. The Pavlovian Journal of Biological Science, 16(4), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03003358
Freedman, A. H., & Wayne, R. K. (2017). Deciphering the origin of dogs: From fossils to genomes. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 5(1), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-022114-110937
Friard, O., & Gamba, M. (2016). BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(11), 1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12584
Gácsi, M., Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Dóka, A., & Csányi, V. (2001). Attachment behavior of adult dogs (Canis familiaris) living at rescue centers: Forming new bonds. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(4), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.115.4.423
Gago Galvagno, L. G., De Grandis, M. C., Elgier, A. M., & Mustaca, A. E. (2021). Factores moduladores de las respuestas de los infantes al paradigma still-face: Una revisión sistemática. Psykhe, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.2019.22227
Gaunet, F. (2008). How do guide dogs of blind owners and pet dogs of sighted owners (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Animal Cognition, 11(3), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0138-3
Gee, N. R., Rodriguez, K. E., Fine, A. H., & Trammell, J. P. (2021). Dogs supporting human health and well-being: A biopsychosocial approach. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 630465. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.630465
Haley, D. W., Handmaker, N. S., & Lowe, J. (2006). Infant stress reactivity and prenatal alcohol exposure: Infant stress and prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 30(12), 2055–2064. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00251.x
Haley, D. W., & Stansbury, K. (2003). Infant stress and parent responsiveness: Regulation of physiology and behavior during still-face and Reunion. Child Development, 74(5), 1534–1546. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00621
Ham, J., & Tronick, E. (2006). Infant resilience to the stress of the still-face: Infant and maternal psychophysiology are related. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094(1), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1376.038
Horowitz, A., & Hecht, J. (2016). Examining dog–human play: The characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction. Animal Cognition, 19(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0976-3
Horschler, D. J., Bray, E. E., Gnanadesikan, G. E., Byrne, M., Levy, K. M., Kennedy, B. S., & MacLean, E. L. (2022). Dogs re-engage human partners when joint social play is interrupted: A behavioural signature of shared intentionality? Animal Behaviour, 183, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.11.007
Kaminski, J., Schulz, L., & Tomasello, M. (2012). How dogs know when communication is intended for them. Developmental Science, 15(2), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01120.x
Kisilevsky, B. S., Hains, S. M. J., Lee, K., Muir, D. W., Xu, F., Fu, G., Zhao, Z. Y., & Yang, R. L. (1998). The still-face effect in Chinese and Canadian 3- to 6-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 629–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.629
Lazarowski, L., Thompkins, A., Krichbaum, S., Waggoner, L. P., Deshpande, G., & Katz, J. S. (2020). Comparing pet and detection dogs (Canis familiaris) on two aspects of social cognition. Learning & Behavior, 48(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-020-00431-8
Mariti, C., Ricci, E., Carlone, B., Moore, J. L., Sighieri, C., & Gazzano, A. (2013). Dog attachment to man: A comparison between pet and working dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 8(3), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2012.05.006
Marshall-Pescini, S., Frazzi, C., & Valsecchi, P. (2016). The effect of training and breed group on problem-solving behaviours in dogs. Animal Cognition, 19(3), 571–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0960-y
Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Barnard, S., Valsecchi, P., & Prato-Previde, E. (2009). Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs’ behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behavioural Processes, 81(3), 416–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.03.015
Marshall-Pescini, S., Valsecchi, P., Petak, I., Accorsi, P. A., & Previde, E. P. (2008). Does training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs’ performance (Canis familiaris) in a problem solving task. Behavioural Processes, 78(3), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2008.02.022
McIntire, R. W., & Colley, T. A. (1967). Social reinforcement in the dog. Psychological Reports, 20(3), 843–846. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1967.20.3.843
McKinley, J., & Sambrook, T. D. (2000). Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition, 3(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050046
Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2009). The many faces of the still-face paradigm: A review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review: DR, 29(2), 120–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.02.001
Miklósi, Á., Kubinyi, E., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Virányi, Z., & Csányi, V. (2003). A simple reason for a big difference. Current Biology, 13(9), 763–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(03)00263-x
Miklósi, A., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2000). Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: An experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Animal Cognition, 3(3), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710000072
Mongillo, P., Pitteri, E., Candaten, M., & Marinelli, L. (2016). Can attention be taught? Interspecific attention by dogs (Canis familiaris) performing obedience tasks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 182, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.05.018
Mongillo, P., Pitteri, E., & Marinelli, L. (2017). Sustained attention to the owner is enhanced in dogs trained for animal assisted interventions. Behavioural Processes, 140, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.024
Muir, D., & Lee, K. (2003). The still-face effect: Methodological issues and new applications. Infancy, 4(4), 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0404_03
Nagy, E., Pilling, K., Watt, R., Pal, A., & Orvos, H. (2017). Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face. PLoS One, 12(8), e0181688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181688
Papini, M. R., & Dudley, R. T. (1997). Consequences of surprising reward omissions. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.175
Payne, E., Bennett, P., & McGreevy, P. (2015). Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–human dyad. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 71. https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.s74972
Piotti, P., Albertini, M., Trabucco, L. P., Ripari, L., Karagiannis, C., Bandi, C., & Pirrone, F. (2021). Personality and cognitive profiles of animal-assisted intervention dogs and pet dogs in an unsolvable task. Animals, 11(7), 2144. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11072144
Pongrácz, P., Miklósi, A., Timár-Geng, K., & Csányi, V. (2004). Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.375
Pop, D. A., Rusu, A. S., Pop-Vancea, V., Papuc, I., Contantinescu, R., & Miresan, V. (2014). Physiological effects of human-animal positive interaction in dogs - review of the literature. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Science & Biotechnologies, 71(2), 10.15835/buasvmcn-asb:10398.
Prato-Previde, E., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2014). Social looking in the domestic dog. In A., Horowitz (Ed.), Domestic dog cognition and behavior (pp. 101–131). Springer .
Range, F., & Viranyi, Z. (2009). Different aspects of social learning in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4(6), 244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.05.007
Scandurra, A., Alterisio, A., & D’Aniello, B. (2016). Behavioural effects of training on water rescue dogs in the strange situation test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 174, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.007
Scheider, L., Grassmann, S., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Domestic dogs use contextual information and tone of voice when following a human pointing gesture. PLoS One, 6(7), e21676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021676
Stewart, L., MacLean, E. L., Ivy, D., Woods, V., Cohen, E., Rodriguez, K., McIntyre, M., Mukherjee, S., Call, J., Kaminski, J., Miklósi, Á., Wrangham, R. W., & Hare, B. (2015). Citizen science as a new tool in dog cognition research. PLoS One, 10(9), e0135176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135176
Topál, J., Gergely, G., Erdohegyi, A., Csibra, G., & Miklósi, A. (2009). Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science, 325(5945), 1269–1272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176960
Topál, J., Kis, A., & Oláh, K. (2014). Dogs’ sensitivity to human ostensive cues: A unique adaptation? In J. Kaminski & S. Marshall-Pescini (Eds.), The social dog (pp. 319–346). Elsevier.
Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-7138(09)62273-1
Udell, M. A. R., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010). Do all dogs follow points? What pound dogs can teach us about human-canine interaction: (598112013-009) [data set]. In PsycEXTRA Dataset. American Psychological Association (APA). https://doi.org/10.1037/e598112013-009.
vonHoldt, B. M., Shuldiner, E., Koch, I. J., Kartzinel, R. Y., Hogan, A., Brubaker, L., Wanser, S., Stahler, D., Wynne, C. D. L., Ostrander, E. A., Sinsheimer, J. S., & Udell, M. A. R. (2017). Structural variants in genes associated with human Williams-Beuren syndrome underlie stereotypical hypersociability in domestic dogs. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700398. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700398
Weinberg, M. K., Beeghly, M., Olson, K. L., & Tronick, E. A. (2008). A still-face paradigm for young children: 2½ year-olds’ reactions to maternal unavailability during the still-face. The Journal of Developmental Processes, 3(1), 4.
Wynne, C. D. L. (2016). What is special about dog cognition? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(5), 345–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416657540
Funding
This research was supported by grants from the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) (PIP N° 11220130100182) and the National Agency for the Promotion of Science and Technology of Argentina (ANPCYT) (PICT 2018, N° 1581).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Gabriela Barrera, Mariana Bentosela. Methodology: Gabriela Barrera, Mariana Bentosela, Camila Cavalli. Data collection and formal analysis: Mariana Bentosela, Camila Cavalli, Marina Victoria Dzik. Writing – original draft preparation: Mariana Bentosela, Camila Cavalli. Writing – review and editing: Gabriela Barrera, Mariana Bentosela, Camila Cavalli, Marina Victoria Dzik. Supervision and funding acquisition: Mariana Bentosela.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
These studies comply with the current Argentinean law of animal protection (Law 14.346) and all procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards and the approval of the CICUAL (Institutional Commission for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals) from the Medical Research Institute IDIM CONICET (Res. N° 120-20 R1, 120-20 R1A). All owners gave their written consent for participation in these studies.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(XLSX 75 kb)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Cavalli, C., Dzik, M.V., Barrera, G. et al. Still-face effect in domestic dogs: comparing untrained with trained and animal assisted interventions dogs. Learn Behav 51, 428–445 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-023-00589-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-023-00589-x