Animal Cognition

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 311–323 | Cite as

How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing?

  • Florence Gaunet
Original Paper


When apes are not fully understood by humans, they persist with attempts to communicate, elaborating their behaviours to better convey their meaning. Such abilities have never been investigated in dogs. The present study aimed to clarify any effect of the visual attentional state of the owner on dogs’ (Canis familiaris) social-communicative signals for interacting with humans, and to determine whether dogs persist and elaborate their behaviour in the face of failure to communicate a request. Gaze at a hidden target or at the owner, gaze alternation between a hidden target and the owner, vocalisations and contacts in 12 guide and 12 pet dogs were analysed (i) when the dogs were asked by their owners (blind or sighted) to fetch their inaccessible toy and (ii) when the dogs were subsequently given an unfamiliar object (apparent unsuccessful communication) or their toy (apparent successful communication). No group differences were found, indicating no effect of the visual status of the owner on the dogs’ socio-communicative modes (i.e. no sensitivity to human visual attention). Results, however, suggest that the dogs exhibited persistence (but not elaboration) in their “showing” behaviours in each condition, except that in which the toy was returned. Thus, their communication was about a specific item in space (the toy). The results suggest that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: (i) to get their inaccessible toy, the dogs gazed at their owners as if to trigger their attention; gaze alternation between the owner and the target direction, and two behaviours directed at the target were performed, apparently to indicate the location of the hidden toy; (ii) after the delivery of the toy, the dogs behaved as if they returned to the play routine, gazing at their owner whilst holding their toy. In conclusion, this study shows that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: they exhibit successive visual orienting between a partner and objects, apparent attention-getting behaviours, no sensitivity to the visual status of humans for communication, and persistence in (but no elaboration of) communicative behaviours when apparent attempts to “manipulate” the human partner fail.


Dog Deictic behaviour Intentional communication Guide dogs Socialisation Play Social cognition 



This work was supported by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and conducted at the “Laboratoire Eco-Anthropologie et Ethnobiologie”, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. The experiments comply with the current laws in France for animal and human research. The author thanks the guide and pet dog owner dyads for their interest and cooperation. The author is especially grateful to P. Piwowar for her contribution to the analysis of the videos and to A. Le Jeannic for her contribution to conducting the experiments and in analysing the tapes. The author is also grateful to A. Miklósi for helpful commentaries on a previous version of the manuscript, and to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the design and interpretation of the study and for corrections to improve the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10071_2009_279_MOESM1_ESM.doc (75 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 75 kb)
10071_2009_279_MOESM2_ESM.doc (53 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 53 kb)
10071_2009_279_MOESM3_ESM.doc (78 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 78 kb)


  1. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food locations that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Gaze alternation during “pointing” by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)? Anim Cogn 10(2):267–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamini Y, Drai D, Elmer G, Kafkafi N, Golani G (2001) Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research. Behav Brain Res 125:279–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentosela M, Barrera G, Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca AE (2008) Effect of reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Behav Proc 78(3):464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bering JM (2004) A critical review of the ‘enculturation hypothesis’: the effects of human rearing on great ape social cognition. Anim Cogn 7:201–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlyne DE (1950) Novelty and curiosity as determinants of exploratory behavior. Brit J Psychol 41:68–80Google Scholar
  7. Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Visual perspective-taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 88:299–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner JS (1977) Early social interaction and language acquisition. In: Schaffer HR (ed) Studies in mother–infant interaction. Academic Press, London, pp 271–289Google Scholar
  9. Bruner JS (1981) Intention in the structure of action and interaction. In: Lipsitt LP, Rovee-Collier CK (eds) Advances in infancy research 1. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, pp 41–56Google Scholar
  10. Call J, Tomasello M (1994) Production and comprehension of referential pointing by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). J Comp Psychol 108:307–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Call J, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2003) Domestic dogs are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol 117:257–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cartmill EA, Byrne RW (2007) Orangutans modify their gestural signaling according to their audience’s comprehension. Curr Biol 17:1345–1348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper JJ, Ashton C, Bishop S, West R, Mills DS, Young RJ (2003) Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). App Anim Behav Sci 81:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans CS (1997) Referential signals. Persp Ethol 12:99–143Google Scholar
  15. Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7:144–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaunet F (2008) How do guide dogs of blind owners and pet dogs of sighted owners (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for food? Anim Cogn 11(3):475–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gómez J-C (2007) Requesting gestures in captive monkeys and apes: conditioned responses or referential behaviours? In: Liebal K, Müller C, Pika S (eds) Gestural communication in nonhuman and human primates. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 81–94Google Scholar
  18. Hare B (2004) Domestic dog use humans as tools. In: Bekoff M (ed) Encyclopedia of animal behavior, vol 1. Greenwood Press, Westport, pp 277–285Google Scholar
  19. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 9:439–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication and food location between human and dogs (Canis familiaris). Evol Comm 2:137–159Google Scholar
  21. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Sci 298:1634–1636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hare B, Plyusnina I, Ignacio N, Schepina O, Stepika A, Wrangham R, Trut L (2005) Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Curr Biol 15:226–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Horowitz A (2009) Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Anim Cogn 12:107–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hostetter A, Cantero M, Hopkins WD (2001) Differential use of vocal and gestural communication in chimpanzees in response to the attentional status of a human audience. J Comp Psychol 115:337–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ittyerah M, Gaunet F (2009) The response of guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis Familiaris) to cues of human referential communication. Anim Cog 12(2):257–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iverson JM, Meadow SG (1997) What’s communication got to do with it? Gesture in children blind from birth. Dev Psychol 33(3):453–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaulfuss P, Mills DS (2008) Neophilia in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and its implications for studies of dog cognition. Anim Cog 11:553–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kerepesi A, Jonsson GK, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V, Magnusson MS (2005) Detection of long-term temporal patterns in dog–human interaction. J Behav Proc 70:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leavens DA (2004) Manual deixis in apes and humans. Inter Stud 5:387–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leavens DA, Hopkins WD (1998) Intentional communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): a cross-sectional study of the use of referential gestures. Dev Psych 34:813–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leavens DA, Hopkins WD, Bard KA (1996) Indexical and referential pointing in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 110:346–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Leavens DA, Hopkins WD, Thomas R (2004) Referential communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 118:48–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Leavens DA, Hopkins WD, Bard KA (2005a) Understanding the point of chimpanzee pointing: epigenesis and ecological validity. Curr DiR Psych Sci 14:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leavens DA, Russell JL, Hopkins WD (2005b) Intentionality as measured in the persistence and elaboration of communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Child Dev 76:291–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Messinger DS, Fogel A (1998) Give and take: the development of conventional infant gestures. Merrill-Palmer Quart 44:566–590Google Scholar
  37. Miklósi Á, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog–human communication: An experimental analysis of showing behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (1991) Projects, routines, and enticements in dog–human play. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol 9. Plenum Press, New York, pp 189–219Google Scholar
  41. Naderi SZ, Miklósi Á, Dóka A, Csányi V (2001) Co-operative interactions between blind persons and their dogs. App Anim Behav Sci 74:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pongrácz-Rossi A, Ades C (2008) A dog at the keyboard: using arbitrary signs to communicate requests. Anim Cogn 11(2):329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reid PJ (2009) Adapting to the human world: dogs’ responsiveness to our social cues. Behav Proc 80:325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Restoin A, Montagner H, Rodriguez D, Giradot JJ, Laurent D, Kontar F, Ullmann V, Casagrande C, Talpain B (1985) Chronologie des comportements de communication et profils de comportement chez le jeune enfant. In: Tremblay RE, Provost MA, Strayer FF (eds) Ethologie et développement de l’enfant. Stock/Laurence Pernoud, Paris, pp 93–130Google Scholar
  45. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2003) Meaning and emotion in animal vocalizations. Ann NY Acad Scie 1000:32–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shwe HI, Markmen EM (1997) Young children’s appreciation of the mental impact of their communicative signals. Dev Psychol 33(4):630–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Jr (1988) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 115:122–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tomasello M, Call J (2004) The role of humans in the cognitive development of apes revisited. Anim Cogn 7:213–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tomasello M, Call J, Nagell K, Olguin R, Carpenter M (1994) The learning and use of gestural signals by young chimpanzees: a trans-generational study. Primates 35:137–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav Process 66:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire “Eco-Anthropologie et Ethnobiologie”, UMR 5145Muséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParis Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations