Animal Cognition

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 777–787 | Cite as

What’s the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures

  • Biagio D’Aniello
  • Alessandra Alterisio
  • Anna Scandurra
  • Emanuele Petremolo
  • Maria Rosaria Iommelli
  • Massimo Aria
Original Paper


In many studies that have investigated whether dogs’ capacities to understand human pointing gestures are aspects of evolutionary or developmental social competences, family-owned dogs have been compared to shelter dogs. However, for most of these studies, the origins of shelter dogs were unknown. Some shelter dogs may have lived with families before entering shelters, and from these past experiences, they may have learned to understand human gestures. Furthermore, there is substantial variation in the methodology and analytic approaches used in such studies (e.g. different pointing protocols, different treatment of trials with no-choice response and indoor vs. outdoor experimental arenas). Such differences in methodologies and analysis techniques used make it difficult to compare results obtained from different studies and may account for the divergent results obtained. We thus attempted to control for several parameters by carrying out a test on dynamic proximal and distal pointing. We studied eleven kennel dogs of known origin that were born and raised in a kennels with limited human interaction. This group was compared to a group of eleven dogs comparable in terms of breed, sex and age that had lived with human families since they were puppies. Our results demonstrate that pet dogs outperform kennel dogs in their comprehension of proximal and distal pointing, regardless of whether trials where no-choice was made were considered as errors or were excluded from statistical analysis, meaning that dogs living in kennels do not understand pointing gestures. Even if genetic effects of the domestication process on human–dog relationships cannot be considered as negligible, our data suggest that dogs need to learn human pointing gestures and thus underscore the importance of ontogenetic processes.


Cue following Pointing Dog Ontogeny Domestication Kennel dogs 



We thank the FOOF museum staff for their logistical support and hospitality. This research project was supported through ordinary funding from the University of Naples “Federico II.”

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethical Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Naples “Federico II” (protocol number 2017/0025509). All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the owners of all dogs included in the study.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 38841 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MP4 25447 kb)


  1. 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(2):107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butterworth G, Franco F, McKenzie B, Graupner L, Todd B (2002) Dynamic aspects of visual event perception and the production of pointing by human infants. Brit J Dev Psychol 20(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carballo F, Freidin E, Casanave E, Bentosela M (2016) Following human pointing: Where do dogs (Canis familiaris) look at to find food? Behav Process 128:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunningham CL, Ramos MF (2014) Effect of training and familiarity on responsiveness to human cues in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 17(3):805–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. D’Aniello B, Scandurra A (2016) Ontogenetic effects on gazing behaviour: a case study of kennel dogs (Labrador Retrievers) in the impossible task paradigm. Anim Cogn 19(3):565–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Aniello B, Scandurra A, Prato-Previde E, Valsecchi P (2015) Gazing toward humans: a study on water rescue dogs using the impossible task paradigm. Behav Process 110:68–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorey NR, Udell MA, Wynne CD (2010) When do domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, start to understand human pointing? The role of ontogeny in the development of interspecies communication. Anim Behav 79(1):37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gácsi M, Gyoöri B, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Range F, Belényi B, Miklósi Á (2009) Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. PLoS ONE 4(8):e6584CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 9(9):439–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298(5598):1634–1636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hare B, Rosati A, Kaminski J, Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2010) The domestication hypothesis for dogs’ skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008). Anim Behav 79(2):e1–e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 150:427–443Google Scholar
  13. Hennessy MB, Williams MT, Miller DD, Douglas CW, Voith VL (1998) Influence of male and female petters on plasma cortisol and behaviour: can human interaction reduce the stress of dogs in a public animal shelter? Appl Anim Behav Sci 61(1):63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaminski J, Nitzschner M (2013) Do dogs get the point? A review of dog–human communication ability. Learn Motiv 44(4):294–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lazarowski L, Dorman DC (2015) A comparison of pet and purpose-bred research dog (Canis familiaris) performance on human-guided object-choice tasks. Behav Process 110:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miklósi Á, Topál J (2011) On the hunt for the gene of perspective taking: pitfalls in methodology. Learn Behav 39(4):310–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, Csányi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13(9):763–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Okamoto-Barth S, Tomonaga M, Tanaka M, Matsuzawa T (2008) Development of using experimenter-given cues in infant chimpanzees: longitudinal changes in behavior and cognitive development. Dev Sci 11(1):98–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pongrácz P, Gácsi M, Hegedüs D, Péter A, Miklósi Á (2013) Test sensitivity is important for detecting variability in pointing comprehension in canines. Anim Cogn 16:721–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Reid PJ (2009) Adapting to the human world: dogs’ responsiveness to our social cues. Behav Process 80(3):325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Anim Behav 75(3):1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scandurra A, Prato-Previde E, Valsecchi P, Aria M, D’Aniello B (2015) Guide dogs as a model for investigating the effect of life experience and training on gazing behaviour. Anim Cogn 18(4):937–944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Scheider L, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2013) Do domestic dogs interpret pointing as a command? Anim Cogn 16(3):361–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Starling MJ, Branson N, Thomson PC, McGreevy PD (2013) Age, sex and reproductive status affect boldness in dogs. Vet J 197(3):868–872CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Svartberg K (2006) Breed-typical behaviour in dogs—historical remnants or recent constructs? Appl Anim Behav Sci 96(3):293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tauzin T, Csík A, Kis A, Topál J (2015) What or where? The meaning of referential human pointing for dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 129(4):334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Udell MA, Wynne CD (2008) A review of domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. J Exp Anal Behav 89(2):247–261CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Udell MA, Wynne CD (2010) Ontogeny and phylogeny: both are essential to human-sensitive behavior in the genus Canis. Anim Behav 79(2):e9–e14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76(6):1767–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2010a) What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biol Rev 85(2):327–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2010b) The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Anim Behav 79(3):717–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2011) Can your dog read your mind? Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking. Learn Behav 39(4):289–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Udell MA, Spencer JM, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2012) Human-socialized wolves follow diverse human gestures… and they may not be alone. Int J Comp Psychol 25(2):97–117Google Scholar
  34. Virányi Z, Gácsi M, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Belényi B, Ujfalussy D, Miklósi Á (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 11(3):373–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Wynne CD, Udell MA, Lord KA (2008) Ontogeny’s impacts on human–dog communication. Anim Behav 76(4):e1–e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zaine I, Domeniconi C, Wynne CD (2015) The ontogeny of human point following in dogs: When younger dogs outperform older. Behav Process 119:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Biagio D’Aniello
    • 1
  • Alessandra Alterisio
    • 1
  • Anna Scandurra
    • 1
    • 2
  • Emanuele Petremolo
    • 1
  • Maria Rosaria Iommelli
    • 1
  • Massimo Aria
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food ScienceUniversity of PaduaLegnaroItaly
  3. 3.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations