Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 757–768 | Cite as

Effects of breed group and development on dogs’ willingness to follow a human misleading advice

  • Shanis BarnardEmail author
  • Chiara Passalacqua
  • Annalisa Pelosi
  • Paola Valsecchi
  • Emanuela Prato-Previde
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of dog breed groups, i.e., primitive, hunting/herding and Mastiff like (Study 1) and development, i.e., 4-month-old puppies vs adults (Study 2) on a quantity discrimination task. The task consisted of three conditions: C1—dogs were asked to choose between a large and a small amount of food; C2—the same choice was presented and dogs could choose after having witnessed the experimenter favouring the small quantity. C3—similar to C2 but the plates had two equally small food quantities. Study 1 revealed that dogs in the hunting/herding group were significantly more likely than Mastiff-like group to choose the small quantity indicated by the person over the large one, although all dog groups chose the large quantity over the small when they had a free choice. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that hunting/herding breeds have been selected for working in cooperation with humans and thus may be more sensitive to human social communicative cues than other breeds. In Study 2, results showed that 4-month-old puppies performed at chance level in C1, whereas in C2 both adults and puppies conformed to the experimenter’s choice. In C3, adults followed the experimenter significantly more than puppies, although puppies still followed the experimenter above chance. Overall, domestic dogs seem to rely heavily on social communicative cues from humans, even when the information contradicts their own perception. This tendency to respond to human social cues is present, although at a lesser extent already at 4 months.

Keywords

Breed differences Development Domestic dog Food-choice task Quantity discrimination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by doctoral grants from the University of Milan to CP and a doctoral grant from the University of Parma to SB. We are very grateful to Sarah Marshall-Pescini for her contribution in running the experiments and to all the owners and dogs who participated as volunteers in these studies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

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):e0134575CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food locations that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cognit 3:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JM, Morath J, Rodzon KS, Jordan KE (2012) A shared system of representation governing quantity discrimination in canids. Front Psychol 3:387CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrera G, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2011) Communication between domestic dogs and humans: effects of shelter housing upon the gaze to the human. Anim Cognit 14(5):727–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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(3):464–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bisazza A, Piffer L, Serena G, Agrillo C (2010) Ontogeny of numerical abilities in fish. PLoS One 5(11):e15516CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonanni R, Natoli E, Cafazzo S, Valsecchi P (2011) Free-ranging dogs assess the quantity of opponents in intergroup conflicts. Anim Cognit 14(1):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psychol 120(1):38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Choudhury N, Gorman KS (2000) The relationship between sustained attention and cognitive performance in 17–24-month old toddlers. Inf Child Dev 9:127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Couillard NL, Woodward AL (1999) Children’s comprehension of deceptive points. Br J Dev Psychol 17:515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 Cognit 19:565–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danchin E, Giraldeau L-A, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbors to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLong CM, Barbato S, O’Leary T, Wilcox KT (2017) Small and large number discrimination in goldfish (Carassius auratus) with extensive training. Behav Process 141:172–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dwyer C, Cole MR (2018) Domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris) tend to follow repeated deceptive human cues even when food is visible. Learn Behav 46:442–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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. Feigenson L, Carey S, Hauser MD (2002) The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychol Sci 13:150–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gàcsi M, McGreevy P, Kara E, Miklósi Á (2009) Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs. Behav Brain Funct 5(1):31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Galef BG, Giraldeau LA (2001) Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal mechanisms and adaptive functions. Anim Behav 61:3–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cognit Sci 9:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauser MD, Spelke E (2004) Evolutionary and developmental foundations of human knowledge. Cog Neurosci 3:853–864Google Scholar
  23. Horowitz A, Hecht G, Dedrick A (2013) Smelling more or less: investigating the olfactory experience of the domestic dog. Learn Motiv 44:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2010a) Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face. Behav Process 84(2):602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2010b) Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face. Behav Process 84:602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaswal VK (2010) Believing what you’re told: young children’s trust in unexpected testimony about the physical world. Cognit Psychol 61:248–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaswal VK, Pérez-Edgar K, Kondrad RL, Palmquist CM, Cole CA, Cole CE (2014) Can’t stop believing: inhibitory control and resistance to misleading testimony. Dev Sci 17(6):965–976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kilian A, Yaman S, von Fersen L, Güntürkün O (2003) A bottlenose dolphin discriminates visual stimuli differing in numerosity. Anim Learn Behav 31:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Konno A, Romero T, Inoue-Murayama M, Saito A, Hasegawa T (2016) Dog breed differences in visual communication with humans. PLoS One 11(10):e0164760CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Kundey SMA, De Los Reyes A, Arbuthnot J, Allen R, Coshun A, Molina S, Royer E (2010) Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) response to dishonest human points. Int J Comp Psychol 23:201–215Google Scholar
  31. Macpherson K, Roberts WA (2013) Can dogs count? Learn Motiv 44(4):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua CA, Barnard S, Valsecchi P, Prato Previde E (2009) Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs’ behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behav Process 81(3):416–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall-Pescini S, Prato-Previde E, Valsecchi P (2011) Are dogs (Canis familiaris) misled more by their owners than by strangers in a food choice task? Anim Cogn 14(1):137–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Miletto-Pedrazzini ME, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2012) Do dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) make counterproductive choices because they are sensitive to human ostensive cues? PLoS One 7(4):e35437CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cognit 3(1):13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miklósi A, Kubinyi E, Topaal J, Gaacsi M (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Miletto-Petrazzini ME, Wynne CDL (2016) What counts for dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in a quantity discrimination task? Behav Process 122:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miletto-Petrazzini ME, Wynne CDL (2017) Quantity discrimination in canids: dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (Cani lupus) compared. Behav Process 144:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker HG, Kim LV, Sutter NB, Carlson S, Lorentzen TD, Malek TB, Johnson GS, DeFrance HB, Ostrander EA, Kruglyak L (2004) Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Science 304:1160–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Passalacqua C, Marshall-Pescini S, Barnard S, Lakatos G, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2011) Human-directed gazing behaviour in puppies and adult dogs, Canis lupus familiaris. Anim Behav 82(5):1043–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petter M, Musolino E, Roberts WA, Cole M (2009) Can dogs (Canis familiaris) detect human deception? Behav Process 82(2):109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pisa PE, Agrillo C (2009) Quantity discrimination in felines: a preliminary investigation of the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus). J Ethol 27(2):289–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Plotnik JM, Lair R, Suphachoksahakun W, De Waal FB (2011) Elephants know when they need a helping trunk in a cooperative task. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(12):5116–5121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Plude DJ, Enns JT, Brodeur D (1994) The development of selective attention: a life-span overview. Acta Psychol 86:227–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pongrácz P, Miyake T, Vida V, Csányi V (2005) The pet dogs ability for learning from a human demonstrator in a detour task is independent from the breed and age. Appl Anim Behav Sci 90:309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P (2008) Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Anim Cognit 11:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Renevey N, Bshary R, van de Waal E (2013) Philopatric vervet monkey females are the focus of social attention rather independently of rank. Behaviour 150(6):599–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Riedel K, Schumann J, Kaminski Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human-dog communication. Anim Behav 75:1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rieucau G, Giraldeau LA (2009) Persuasive companions can be wrong: the use of misleading social information in nutmeg mannikins. Behav Ecol 20(6):1217–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rugani R, Fontanari L, Simoni E, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2009) Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276(1666):2451–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rugani R, Cavazzana A, Vallortigara G, Regolin L (2013) One, two, three, four, or is there something more? Numerical discrimination in day-old domestic chicks. Anim Cogn 16(4):557–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Serpell JA, Duffy DL (2014) Dog breed and their behaviour. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog cognition and behavior. Springer, New York, pp 31–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Szetei V, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2003) When dogs seem to lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and owner. Appl Anim Behav Sci 83:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Takaoka A, Maeda T, Hori Y, Fujita K (2015) Do dogs follow behavioral cues from an unreliable human? Anim Cognit 18(2):475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turcsán B, Kubiny E, Miklósi A (2011) Trainability and boldness traits differ between breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic relatedness. Appl Anim Behav Sci 132:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2010) What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biol Rev 85(2):327–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Uller C, Lewis J (2009) Horses (Equus caballus) select the greater of two quantities in small numerical contrasts. Anim Cognit 12:733–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Uller C, Jaeger R, Guidry G, Martin C (2003) Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in an amphibian. Anim Cognit 6:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ward C, Smuts BB (2007) Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cognit 10(1):71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. West RE, Young RJ (2002) Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Anim Cognit 5(3):183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Willis MB (1977) The German Shepherd dog: its history, development and genetics. Arco Publishing Company, New York, pp 19–32Google Scholar
  62. Wobber V, Hare B, Koler-Matznick J, Wrangham R, Tomasello M (2009) Breed differences in domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) comprehension of human communicative signals. Interact Stud 10(2):206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wynne CD, Udell MA, Lord KA (2008) Ontogeny’s impacts on human-dog communication. Anim Behav 76(4):e1–e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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 GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Comparative Pathobiology, College of Veterinary MedicinePurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Fisiopatologia Medico-Chirurgica e dei Trapianti, Sezione di NeuroscienzeUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Medicina e ChirurgiaUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche, della Vita e della Sostenibilità AmbientaleUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations