Recently, comparative research on the mechanisms and species-specific adaptive values of attributing attentive states and using communicative cues has gained increased interest, particularly in non-human primates, birds, and dogs. Here, we investigate these phenomena in a farm animal species, the dwarf goat (Capra aegagrus hircus). In the first experiment, we investigated the effects of different human head and body orientations, as well as human experimenter presence/absence, on the behaviour of goats in a food-anticipating paradigm. Over a 30-s interval, the experimenter engaged in one of four different postures or behaviours (head and body towards the subject—'Control', head to the side, head and body away from the subject, or leaving the room) before delivering a reward. We found that the level of subjects’ active anticipatory behaviour was highest in the control condition and decreased with a decreasing level of attention paid to the subject by the experimenter. Additionally, goats ‘stared’ (i.e. stood alert) at the experimental set-up for significantly more time when the experimenter was present but paid less attention to the subject (‘Head’ and ‘Back’ condition) than in the ‘Control’ and ‘Out’ conditions. In a second experiment, the experimenter provided different human-given cues that indicated the location of a hidden food reward in a two-way object choice task. Goats were able to use both ‘Touch’ and ‘Point’ cues to infer the correct location of the reward but did not perform above the level expected by chance in the ‘Head only’ condition. We conclude that goats are able to differentiate among different body postures of a human, including head orientation; however, despite their success at using multiple physical human cues, they fail to spontaneously use human head direction as a cue in a food-related context.
Dwarf goats Social cognition Food-anticipation paradigm Attentive states Human-given cues
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We would like to thank Katrin Siebert for data coding, Gerd Nürnberg for statistical advice, and Dieter Sehland and Heinz Deike for excellent technical assistance.
Bania AE, Stromberg EE (2013) The effect of body orientation on judgments of human visual attention in western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). J Comp Psychol 127:82–90. doi:10.1037/a0027261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botting JL, Wiper ML, Anderson JR (2011) Brown (Eulemur fulvus) and ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) use human head orientation as a cue to gaze direction in a food choice task. Folia Primatol 82:165–176. doi:10.1159/000333142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butz MV, Sigaud O, Gérard P (2003) Anticipatory behavior: exploiting knowledge about the future to improve current behavior. Anticip Behav Adapt Learn Syst Found Theor Syst Springer, pp 1–10Google Scholar
Craig W (1918) Appetites and aversions as constituents of instincts. Biol Bull 34:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nawroth C, Ebersbach M, von Borell E (2013) Are juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) sensitive to the attentive states of humans?—The impact of impulsivity on choice behaviour. Behav Process 96:53–58. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Spruijt BM, Van den Bos R, Pijlman FTA (2001) A concept of welfare based on reward evaluating mechanisms in the brain: anticipatory behaviour as an indicator for the state of reward systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci 72:145–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar