Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 367–374 | Cite as

Dogs (Canis familiaris) adjust their social behaviour to the differential role of inanimate interactive agents

  • Eszter PetróEmail author
  • Judit Abdai
  • Anna Gergely
  • József Topál
  • Ádám Miklósi
Original Paper

Abstract

Dogs are able to flexibly adjust their social behaviour to situation-specific characteristics of their human partner’s behaviour in problem situations. However, dogs do not necessarily detect the specific role played by the human in a particular situation: they may form expectations about their partners’ behaviour based on previous experiences with them. Utilising inanimate objects (UMO—unidentified moving object) as interacting agents offers new possibilities for investigating social behaviour, because in this way we can remove or control the influence of previous experience with the partner. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether dogs are able to recognise the different roles of two UMOs and are able to adjust their communicative behaviour towards them. In the learning phase of the experiment, dogs were presented with a two-way food-retrieval problem in which two UMOs, which differed in their physical appearance and abilities, helped the dog obtain a piece of food in their own particular manner. After a short experience with both UMOs, dogs in the test phase faced one of the problems in the presence of both inanimate agents. Overall, dogs displayed similar levels of gazing behaviour towards the UMOs, but in the first test they looked, approached and touched the relevant partner first. This rapid adjustment of social behaviour towards UMOs suggests that dogs may generalise their experiences with humans to unfamiliar agents and are able to select the appropriate partner when facing a problem situation.

Keywords

Dog Problem solving Social interaction Inanimate agent 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Sinergia project SWARMIX (Project Number CRSI22 133059) and MTA-ELTE Comparative Ethology Research Group (MTA 01 031) and OTKA K 112138. The authors are grateful to the owners for participating in the experiment.

References

  1. Abdai J, Gergely A, Petró E, Topál J, Miklósi Á (2015) An investigation on social representations: inanimate agent can mislead dogs (Canis familiaris) in a food choice task. PLoS One 10(8):e0134575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134575 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food location that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3:107–112. doi: 10.1007/s100710000070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brauer J, Bos M, Call J, Tomasello M (2012) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) coordinate their actions in a problem-solving task. Anim Cogn 16:273–285. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0571-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 11:475–483. doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0138-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gaunet F (2010) How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing? Anim Cogn 2:311–323. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0279-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaunet F, Deputte BL (2011) Functionally referential and intentional communication in domestic dogs: effects of spatial and social context. Anim Cogn 14(6):849–860. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0418-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gaunet F, El Massioui F (2014) Marked referential communicative behaviours, but no differentiation of the “knowledge state” of humans in untrained pet dogs versus 1-years-old infants. Anim Cogn 17:1137–1147. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0746-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gergely A, Petró E, Topál J, Miklósi Á (2013) What are you or who are you? The emergence of social interaction between dog and an Unidentified Moving Object (UMO). PLoS ONE 8:e72727. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072727 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gergely A, Abdai J, Petró E, Kosztolányi A, Topál J, Miklósi Á (2015) Dogs rapidly develop socially competent behaviour while interacting with a contingently responding self-propelled object. Anim Behav 108:137–144. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.07.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horn L, Zs Virányi, Miklósi Á, Huber L, Range F (2012) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) flexibly adjust their human-directed behaviour to the actions of their human partners in a problem. Anim Cogn 15:57–71. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0432-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jenkins HM, Barrera FJ, Ireland C, Woodside B (1978) Signal centred action patterns of dogs in appetitive classical conditioning. Learn Motiv 9:272–296. doi: 10.1016/0023-9690(78)90010-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaminski J, Neumann M, Brauer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2011) Dogs (Canis familiaris) communicate with humans to request but not to inform. Anim Behav 82:651–658. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krause J, Winfield AFT, Deneubourg JL (2011) Interactive robots in experimental biology. Trends Evol 26:369–375. doi:  10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kubinyi E, Miklósi Á, Kaplan F, Gácsi M, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Social behaviour of dogs encountering AIBO, an animal-like robot in a neutral and in a feeding situation. Behav Proc 65:231–239. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2003.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ladu F, Bartolini T, Panitz SG, Chiarotti F, Butail S, Macri S, Porfiri M (2015) Live predators, robots, and computer-animated images elicit differential avoidance responses in zebrafish. Zebrafish 12:205–214. doi: 10.1089/zeb.2014.1041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Melis AP, Hare B, Tomasello M (2006) Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators. Science 311:1297–1300. doi: 10.1126/science.1123007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Miklósi A, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog–human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166. doi: 10.1007/s100710000072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milgram NW, Head E, Weiner E, Thomas E (1994) Cognitive functions and aging in the dog: acquisition of nonspatial visual tasks. Behav Neurosci 08:57–68. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.108.1.57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller Ac, Riemer S, Range F, Huber L (2014) Dogs’ use the solidity principle-revisited. Anim Cogn 3:821–825. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0709-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Range F, Möslinger H, Zs Virányi (2011) Domestication has not affected the understanding of mean-end connection in dogs. Anim Cogn 15(4):597–607. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0488-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riedel J, Buttelmann D, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use a physical marker to locate hidden food. Anim Cogn 9:27–35. doi: 10.1007/s10071-005-0256-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Spinello C, Macri S, Porfiri M (2013) Acute ethanol administration affects zebrafish preference for a biologically-inspired robot. Alcohol 47(5):391–398. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2013.04.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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(3–4):223–243. doi: 10.1556/JCEP.3.2005.3-4.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Virányi ZS, Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2006) A nonverbal test of knowledge attribution: a comparative study on dogs and children. Anim Cogn 9:13–26. doi: 10.1007/s10071-005-0257-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eszter Petró
    • 1
    Email author
  • Judit Abdai
    • 1
  • Anna Gergely
    • 1
    • 2
  • József Topál
    • 2
  • Ádám Miklósi
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EthologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and PsychologyHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  3. 3.MTA-ELTE Comparative Ethology Research GroupBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations