Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1137–1147 | Cite as

Marked referential communicative behaviours, but no differentiation of the “knowledge state” of humans in untrained pet dogs versus 1-year-old infants

Original Paper

Abstract

The study examines whether untrained dogs and infants take their caregiver’s visual experience into account when communicating with them. Fifteen adult dogs and 15 one-year-old infants were brought into play with their caregivers with one of their own toys. The caregiver gave the toy to the experimenter, who, in different conditions, placed it either above or under one of two containers, with both the infant or dog and the caregiver witnessing the positioning; in a third condition, the caregiver left the room before the toy was placed under one of the two containers and later returned. Afterwards, for each condition, the caregiver asked the participant to indicate the location of the toy. Neither dogs nor infants—untrained to the use of the partner’s knowledge state—showed much difference of behaviour between the three conditions. However, dogs showed more persistence for most behaviours (gaze at the owner, gaze at the toy and gaze alternation) and conditions, suggesting that the situation made more demands on dogs’ communicative behaviours than on those of infants. When all deictic behaviours of infants (arm points towards the toy and gaze at the toy) were taken into account, dogs and infants did not differ. Phylogeny, early experience and ontogeny may all play a role in the ways that both species communicate with adult humans.

Keywords

Dog Communication Knowledge attribution Infant Social Learning 

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (AVI 31176 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (AVI 40209 kb)

Supplementary material 3 (AVI 64246 kb)

10071_2014_746_MOESM4_ESM.ppt (106 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PPT 106 kb)
10071_2014_746_MOESM5_ESM.doc (96 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOC 96 kb)

References

  1. Anderson JR, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Gaze alternation during “pointing” by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)? Anim Cogn 10:267–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates E, Camaioni L, Volterra V (1975) The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Q Behav Dev 21:205–226Google Scholar
  3. Bates E, Benigni L, Bretherton I, Camaioni L, Volterra V (1979) The emergence of symbols: cognition and communication in infancy. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle 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 Process 78:464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Brooks R, Meltzoff AN (2008) Infant gaze following and pointing predict accelerated vocabulary growth through two years of age: a longitudinal, growth curve modelling study. J Child Lang 35:207–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruner JS (1998) Routes to reference. Pragmat Cogn 6:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butterworth G (2001) Joint visual attention in infancy. In: Bremner JG, Fogel A (eds) Handbook of infant development. Blackwell, Hove, pp 213–240Google Scholar
  9. Call J, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2003) Domestic dogs are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psych 117:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campos JJ, Steinberg CR (1981) Perception, appraisal and emotion: the onset of social referencing. In: Lamb ME, Sherrod LR (eds) Infant social cognition: empirical and theoretical considerations. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 273–314Google Scholar
  11. Carpenter M, Nagell K, Tomasello M (1998) Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 63:1–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cliff N (1993) Dominance statistics: ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychol Bull 114:494–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuevas K, Bell MA (2010) Developmental progression of looking and reaching performance on the A-not-B task. Dev Psychol 46:1363–1371PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doré FY, Goulet S (1998) The comparative analysis of object knowledge. In: Langer J, Killen M (eds) Piaget, evolution, and development. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 55–72Google Scholar
  15. Dorey NR, Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2010) When do dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) start to understand human pointing? The role of ontogeny in the development of inter-species communication. Anim Behav 79:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elgier AM, Jakovcevic A, Barrera G, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2009) Communication between domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans: dogs are good learners. Behav Process 81:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 7:144–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 11:475–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gaunet F (2010) How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing? Anim Cogn 132:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaunet F, Deputte BL (2011) Functionally referential and intentional communication in the domestic dog: effects of spatial and social contexts. Anim Cogn 14:849–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gómez J-C (2007) Pointing behaviors in apes and human infants: a balanced interpretation. Child Dev 78:729–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gullberg M, de Bot K, Volterra V (2008) Gestures and some key issues in the study of language development. Gesture 8:149–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication and food location between human and dogs (Canis familiaris). Evol Commun 2:137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauser MD, Comins JA, Pytka LM, Cahill DP, Velez-Calderon S (2010) What experimental experience affects dogs’ comprehension of human communicative actions? Behav Process 86:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hofstadter MC, Reznick JS (1996) Response modality affects human infant delayed-response performance. Child Dev 67:646–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ittyerah M, Gaunet F (2009) The response of guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis Familiaris) to cues of human referential communication. Anim Cogn 12:167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaminski J, Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2009) Domestic dogs are sensitive to a human’s perspective. Behaviour 146:979–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaminski J, Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2012) Dogs steal in the dark. Anim Cogn 16:385–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lakatos G, Soproni K, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2009) A comparative approach to dogs’ (Canis familiaris) and human infants’ comprehension of various forms of pointing gestures. Anim Cogn 12:621–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leavens DA (2004) Manual deixis in apes and humans. Interact Stud 5:387–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leavens DA (2009) Manual deixis in apes and humans. In: Abry C, Vilain A, Schwartz J-L (eds) Vocalize to localize. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leavens DA, Russell JL, Hopkins WD (2005) Intentionality as measured in the persistence and elaboration of communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Child Dev 76:291–306PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leavens DA, Hopkins WD, Bard KA (2008) The heterochronic origins of explicit reference. In: Zlatev J, Racine T, Sinha C, Itkonen E (eds) The shared mind: perspectives on intersubjectivity. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 187–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Liszkowski U, Tomasello M (2011) Individual differences in social, cognitive, and morphological aspects of infant pointing. Cogn Dev 26:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liszkowski U, Albrecht K, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2008a) Infants’ visual and auditory communication when a partner is or is not visually attending. Infant Behav Dev 31:157–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liszkowski U, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2008b) Twelve-month-olds communicate helpfully and appropriately for knowledgeable and ignorant partners. Cognition 108:732–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lock A (2001) Preverbal communication. In: Bremner G, Fogel A (eds) Handbook of infant development. Blackwell, Malden, pp 370–403Google Scholar
  38. Marshall-Pescini S, Colombo E, Passalacqua C, Merola I, Prato-Previde E (2013) Gaze alternation in dogs and toddlers in an unsolvable task: evidence of an audience effect. Anim Cogn 16:933–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin P, Bateson P (1986) Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Moore C, D’Entremont B (2001) Developmental changes in pointing as a function of attentional focus. J Cogn Dev 2:109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reddy V (2005) Before the ‘third element’: understanding attention to self. In: Eilan N, Howerl C, McCormack T, Roessler J (eds) Joint attention: communication and other minds, issues in philosophy and psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 85–109Google Scholar
  45. Sawilowsky SS (1990) Nonparametric tests of interaction in experimental design. Rev Educ Res 60:91–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shwe HI, Markman EM (1997) Young children’s appreciation of the mental impact of their communicative signals. Dev Psychol 33:630–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 115:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Striano T, Stahl D, Cleveland A (2009) Taking a closer look at social and cognitive skills: a weekly longitudinal assessment between 7 and 10 months of age. Eur J Dev Psychol 99:567–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (1997) Dog-human relationship affects problem solving ability in the dog. Anthrozoös 10:214–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Topál J, Erdőhegyi Á, Mányik R, Miklósi Á (2006) Mindreading in a dog: an adaptation of a primate ‘mental attribution’ study. Int J Psychol Psychol Ther 6:365–379Google Scholar
  51. Trevarthen C (1977) Descriptive analyses of infant communicative behaviour. In: Schaffer HR (ed) Studies in mother-infant interaction. Academic Press, New York, pp 227–270Google Scholar
  52. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2010) The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Anim Behav 79:717–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2011) Can your dog read your mind? Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking. Learn Behav 39:289–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Virányi Z, Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2006) A nonverbal test of knowledge attribution: a comparative study on dogs and children. Anim Cogn 9:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, UMR 7920, FR 3 C, Bât 9, Case D, Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAix-Marseille UniversitéMarseille Cedex 3France
  2. 2.Laboratoire Eco-Anthropologie et Ethnobiologie, UMR 7206, CP 140, Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMuséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParis Cedex 05France
  3. 3.Laboratoire Cognitions Humaine et Artificielle, UFR de PsychologieUniversité Paris 8Saint-Denis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations