Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 83–94 | Cite as

Fetching what the owner prefers? Dogs recognize disgust and happiness in human behaviour

  • Borbála TurcsánEmail author
  • Flóra Szánthó
  • Ádám Miklósi
  • Enikő Kubinyi
Original Paper


Research using the two-object choice paradigm showed that dogs prefer the object associated with the happy human emotion. However, they provided rather ambiguous results regarding the negative emotions. We assumed that differences between the dogs’ and owners’ interest towards the ‘negative’ object might be responsible for this. In our experiment, dogs observed their owner expressing different emotions towards two uniform plastic bottles. Five dog groups were tested based on the condition they received: (1) happy versus neutral, (2) happy versus disgust, (3) neutral versus disgust and (4–5) neutral vs neutral, as control groups. Contrary to previous studies using free choice paradigm, we used a task-driven approach. After the demonstration, the dogs had to retrieve one object to the owner. The dogs’ performance in the two neutral–neutral groups did not differ from the chance level. In contrast, subjects were able to distinguish between the happy and neutral expression of the owner: they both approached and fetched the ‘happy’ object. In the happy–disgusted and neutral–disgusted groups, the dogs approached the bottles randomly, suggesting that they found the ‘disgusting’ and ‘neutral’ objects equally attractive. Nevertheless, the dogs preferentially retrieved the object marked with the relatively more positive emotion (happy or neutral) to the owner in both conditions. Our results demonstrate that dogs are able to recognize which is the more positive among two emotions, and in a fetching task situation, they override their own interest in the ‘disgusting’ object and retrieve what the owner prefers.


Emotion recognition Dog Cooperation Disgust Happiness 



This work was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (K 84036), the Bolyai Foundation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the MTA-ELTE Comparative Ethology Research Group (01 031), and the ESF Research Networking Programme ‘CompCog’: The Evolution of Social Cognition ( (06-RNP-020). The authors are grateful to József Topál for his help in the development of the protocol. We would like to thank all the owners and dogs who participated in this study. We also would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for all their useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics standard

The experiment complies with the current laws of Hungary. According to the corresponding definition by law (‘1998. évi XXVIII. Törvény’ 3. §/9.—the Animal Protection Act), non-invasive studies on dogs are currently allowed to be done without any special permission in Hungary.

Supplementary material

10071_2014_779_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (268 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 268 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPEG 72962 kb)


  1. Buttelmann D, Tomasello M (2013) Can domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use referential emotional expressions to locate hidden food? Anim Cogn 16:137–145. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0560-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buttelmann D, Call J, Tomasello M (2009) Do great apes use emotional expressions to infer desires? Dev Sci 12:688–698. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00802.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deputte BL, Doll A (2011) Do dogs understand human facial expressions? J Vet Behav 6:78–79. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ekman P (1992) Are there basic emotions? Psychol Rev 99:550–553. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.550 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiset S, Beaulieu C, Landry F (2003) Duration of dogs’ (Canis familiaris) working memory in search for disappearing objects. Anim Cogn 6:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10071-002-0157-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hegedüs D, Bálint A, Miklósi Á, Pongrácz P (2013) Owners fail to influence the choices of dogs in a two-choice, visual pointing task. Behaviour 150:427–443. doi: 10.1163/1568539X-00003060 Google Scholar
  7. Hernádi A, Kis A, Turcsán B, Topál J (2012) Man’s underground best friend: domestic ferrets, unlike the wild forms, show evidence of dog-like social-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE 7(8):e43267. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043267 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hori Y, Kishi H, Inoue-Murayama M, Fujita K (2011) Individual variability in response to human facial expression among dogs. J Vet Behav 6:70. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.09.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 12:621–631. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0221-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Merola I, Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S (2012) Dogs’ social referencing towards owners and strangers. PLoS ONE 7(10):e47653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047653 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Merola I, Prato-Previde E, Lazzaroni M, Marshall-Pescini S (2014) Dogs’ comprehension of referential emotional expressions: familiar people and familiar emotions are easier. Anim Cogn 17:373–385. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0668-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Comparative social cognition: what can dogs teach us? Anim Behav 67:995–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mills DS, Fukuzawa M, Cooper JJ (2005) The effect of emotional content of verbal commands on the response of dogs. In: Mills D et al (eds) Current issues and research in veterinary behavioural medicine-papers presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 217–220Google Scholar
  14. Morris PH, Doe C, Godsell E (2008) Secondary emotions in non-primate species? Behavioural reports and subjective claims by animal owners. Cognition Emotion 22:3–20. doi: 10.1080/02699930701273716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nagasawa M, Murai K, Mogi K, Kikusui T (2011) Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions. Anim Cogn 14:1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0386-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Range F, Horn L, Bugnyar T, Gajdon GK, Huber L (2009) Social attention in keas, dogs, and human children. Anim Cogn 12:181–192. doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0181-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Repacholi BM (1998) Infants’ use of attentional cues to identify the referent of another person’s emotional expression. Dev Psychol 34:1017–1025. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.5.1017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Repacholi BM, Gopnik A (1997) Early reasoning about desires: evidence from 14- and 18-month-olds. Dev Psychol 33:12–21. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.1.12 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J (1999) The CAD triad hypothesis: a mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three codes (community, autonomy, divinity). J Pers Soc Psychol 76:574–586. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruffman T, Morris-Trainor Z (2011) Do dogs understand human emotional expressions? J Vet Behav 6:97–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmidjell T, Range F, Huber L, Virányi ZS (2012) Do owners have a clever Hans effect on dogs? Results of a pointing study. Front Psychol 3:558. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00558 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sümegi Zs, Kis A, Miklósi Á, Topál J (2014) Why do adult dogs (Canis familiaris) commit the A-not-B search error? J Comp Psychol 128:21–30. doi: 10.1037/a0033084 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Téglás E, Gergely A, Kupán K, Miklósi Á, Topál J (2012) Dogs’ gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals. Curr Biol 22:209–212. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.018 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Topál J, Kubinyi E, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á (2005) Obeying social rules: a comparative study on dogs and humans. J Cult Evol Psychol 3:213–239. doi: 10.1556/JCEP.3.2005.3-4.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Borbála Turcsán
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Flóra Szánthó
    • 1
  • Ádám Miklósi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Enikő Kubinyi
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EthologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and PsychologyHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  3. 3.MTA–ELTE Comparative Ethology Research GroupBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations