Do dogs follow behavioral cues from an unreliable human?

Abstract

Dogs are known to consistently follow human pointing gestures. In this study, we asked whether dogs “automatically” do this or whether they flexibly adjust their behavior depending upon the reliability of the pointer, demonstrated in an immediately preceding event. We tested pet dogs in a version of the object choice task in which a piece of food was hidden in one of the two containers. In Experiment 1, Phase 1, an experimenter pointed at the baited container; the second container was empty. In Phase 2, after showing the contents of both containers to the dogs, the experimenter pointed at the empty container. In Phase 3, the procedure was exactly as in Phase 1. We compared the dogs’ responses to the experimenter’s pointing gestures in Phases 1 and 3. Most dogs followed pointing in Phase 1, but many fewer did so in Phase 3. In Experiment 2, dogs followed a new experimenter’s pointing in Phase 3 following replication of procedures of Phases 1 and 2 in Experiment 1. This ruled out the possibility that dogs simply lost motivation to participate in the task in later phases. These results suggest that not only dogs are highly skilled at understanding human pointing gestures, but also they make inferences about the reliability of a human who presents cues and consequently modify their behavior flexibly depending on the inference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10:17–21

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Behne T, Liszkowski U, Carpenter M, Tomasello M (2012) Twelve-month-olds’ comprehension and production of pointing. Br J Dev Psychol 30:359–375

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 120:38–47

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chow V, Poulin-Dubois D, Lewis J (2008) To see or not to see: infants prefer to follow the gaze of a reliable looker. Dev Sci 11:761–770

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Corriveau K, Harris PL (2009) Choosing your informant: weighing familiarity and recent accuracy. Dev Sci 12:426–437

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Couillard NL, Woodward AL (1999) Children’s comprehension of deceptive points. Br J Dev Psychol 17:515–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fujita K, Morisaki A, Takaoka A, Maeda T, Hori Y (2012) Incidental memory in dogs (Canis familiaris): adaptive behavioral solution at an unexpected memory test. Anim Cogn 15:1055–1063

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gácsi M, Kara E, Belényi B, Topál J, Miklósi A (2009) The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs. Anim Cogn 123:471–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. J Comp Psychol 113:173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 9:439–444

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris PL, Corriveau KH (2011) Young children’s selective trust in informants. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366:1179–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heyman G, Sritanyaratana L, Vanderbilt KE (2013) Young children’s trust in overtly misleading advice. Cogn Sci 37:646–667

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Itakura S, Tanaka M (1998) Use of experimenter given cues during object choice tasks by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and human infants (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 112:119–126

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Koenig MA, Clément F, Harris PL (2004) Trust in testimony: children’s use of true and false statements. Psychol Sci 15:694–698

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kundey SM, Reyes ADL, Arbuthnot J, Allen R, Coshun A, Moline S, Royer E (2010) Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) response to dishonest human points. Int J Comp Psychol 23:201–215

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kundey SMA, Reyes ADL, Royer E, Molina S, Monnier B, German R, Coshun A (2011) Reputation-like inference in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 14:291–302

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Ferrario A, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2011a) Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Anim Behav 81:1177–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marshall-Pescini S, Prato-Previde E, Valsecchi P (2011b) Are dogs (Canis familiaris) misled more by their owners than by strangers in a food choice task? Anim Cogn 14:137–142

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cue in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 human, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nitzschner M, Melis AP, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2012) Dogs (Canis familiaris) evaluate humans on the basis of direct experiences only. PLoS ONE 7:e46880

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Petter M, Musolino E, Roberts W, Cole M (2009) Can dogs (Canis familiaris) detect human deception? Behav Process 82:109–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 Cogn 11:167–174

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Reid P (2009) Adapting to the human world: dogs’ responsiveness to our social cues. Behav Process 80:325–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Anim Behav 75:1003–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 83:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Takaoka A (2009) Social intelligence in dogs viewed from dog-human interaction. Jpn J Anim Psychol 59:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Takaoka A, Morisaki A, Fujita K (2013) Cross-modal concept of human gender in dogs (Canis familiaris). Jpn J Anim Psychol 63:123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Udell MR, Wynne CDL (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):247–261

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vanderbilt K, Liu D, Heyman G (2011) The development of distrust. Child Dev 82:1372–1380

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Grant-in-for JSPS Research Fellows No. 225877 to Akiko Takaoka, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. 2022004 and 25240020 to Kazuo Fujita, and MEXT Global COE program, D-07 to Kyoto University. All of the experiments were conducted after collecting informed consent from the dogs’ owners. We thank all of the dogs and dog owners who volunteered for this study. We also wish to thank James R. Anderson for his valuable comments. We also thank Sho Otaki for his help in the statistical analyses. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

We declare no conflict of interest regarding this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akiko Takaoka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takaoka, A., Maeda, T., Hori, Y. et al. Do dogs follow behavioral cues from an unreliable human?. Anim Cogn 18, 475–483 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0816-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dog
  • Dog–human interaction
  • Selective trust
  • Pointing
  • Object choice task