Animal Cognition

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 779–788 | Cite as

Examining dog–human play: the characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction

Original Paper

Abstract

Despite the growing interest in research on the interaction between humans and dogs, only a very few research projects focus on the routines between dogs and their owners. In this study, we investigated one such routine: dog–human play. Dyadic interspecific play is known to be a common interaction between owner and charge, but the details of what counts as play have not been thoroughly researched. Similarly, though people represent that “play” is pleasurable, no study has yet undertaken to determine whether different forms of play are associated with different affective states. Thus, we aimed to generate an inventory of the forms of dyadic play, the vocalizations within play, and to investigate the relationship of affect to elements of play. Via a global citizen science project, we solicited videotapes of dog–human play sessions from dog owners. We coded 187 play bouts via frame-by-frame video playback. We then assessed the relationship between various intra-bout variables and owner affect (positive or neutral) during play (dog affect was overwhelmingly positive). Amount of physical contact (“touch”), level of activity of owner (“movement”), and physical closeness of dog–owner dyad (“proximity”) were highly correlated with positive affect. Owner vocalizations were found to contain different elements in positive- and neutral-affect play. One novel category of play, “tease”, was found. We conclude that not all play is created equal: the experience of play to the owner participant is strongly related to a few identifiable characteristics of the interaction.

Keywords

Dog–human play Categories of play Citizen science Affect Vocalizations 

Supplementary material

10071_2016_976_MOESM1_ESM.docx (96 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 95 kb)
10071_2016_976_MOESM2_ESM.docx (508 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 507 kb)

References

  1. Bekoff M (1974) Social play in coyotes, wolves, and dogs. Bioscience 24:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekoff M (1995) Play signals as punctuation: the structure of social play in canids. Behaviour 132:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekoff M, Byers J (1998) Animal play: Evolutionary, comparative, and ecological perspectives. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergen D (2002) The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Child Res Pract 4:1–13Google Scholar
  5. Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, Parrish JK (2014) Next steps for citizen science. Science 343:1436–1437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw JWS, Pullen AJ, Rooney NJ (2015) Why do adult dogs ‘play’? Behav Process 110:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burghardt GM (2010) Play. In: Breed MD, Moore J (eds) Encyclopedia of animal behaviour, vol 2. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 740–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Call J, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2003) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol 117:257–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook A, Arter J, Jacobs LF (2014) My owner, right or wrong: the effect of familiarity on the domestic dog’s behaviour in a food-choice task. Anim Cogn 17:461–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagen R (1981) Animal play behaviour. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Gadbois S, Reeve C (2014) Canine olfaction: scent, sign, and situation. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog behaviour and cognition: the scientific study of Canis familiaris. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hecht J, Horowitz A (2015) Introduction to dog behaviour. In: Weiss E, Mohan-Gibbons H, Zawitowski S (eds) Animal behaviour for shelter veterinarians and staff. Wiley-Blackwell, London, pp 5–30Google Scholar
  13. Hecht J, Spicer Rice E (2015) Citizen science: a new direction in canine behaviour research. Behav Process 110:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Held SDE, Spinka M (2011) Animal play and animal welfare. Anim Behav 81:891–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horowitz AC (2009) Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Anim Cogn 12:107–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Horowitz A (ed) (2014) Domestic dog behaviour and cognition: the scientific study of Canis familiaris. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  17. Horowitz AC, Bekoff M (2007) Naturalizing anthropomorphism: behavioural prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoös 20:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horváth Z, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2008) Affective and disciplinary behaviour of human handlers during play with their dog affects cortisol concentrations in opposite directions. Horm Behav 54:107–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lillard AS, Lerner MD, Hopkins EJ, Dore RA, Smith ED, Palmquist CM (2012) The impact of pretend play on children’s development: a review of the evidence. Psychol Bull 39:1–34Google Scholar
  20. Lit L, Schweitzer JB, Oberbauer AM (2010) Characterization of human–dog social interaction using owner report. Behav Process 84:721–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehrkam LR, Wynne CDL (2014) Behavioural differences among breeds of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris): current status of the science. Appl Anim Behav Sci 155:12–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell RW (2004) Controlling the dog, pretending to have a conversation, or just being friendly? Influences of sex and familiarity on Americans’ talk to dogs during play. Interact Stud 5:99–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell RW, Edmonson E (1999) Functions of repetitive talk to dogs during play: control, conversation or planning? Soc Anim 7:55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (1991) The effects of familiarity on dog–human play. Anthrozoös 4:24–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller CA, Schmitt K, Barber ALA, Huber L (2015) Dogs can discriminate emotional expressions of human faces. Curr Biol 25:601–605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagasawa M, Mitsui S, En S, Ohtani N, Ohta M, Sakuma Y, Onaka T, Mogi K, Kikusui T (2015) Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human–dog bonds. Science 348:333–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Nishida T, Kano T, Goodall J, McGrew WC, Nakamura M (1999) Ethogram and ethnography of Mahale chimpanzees. Anthropol Sci 107:141–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Odendaal JSJ, Meintjes RA (2003) Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Vet J 165:296–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Petrů M, Špinka M, Charvátová V, Lhota S (2009) Revisiting play elements and self-handicapping in play: a comparative ethogram of five old world monkey species. J Comp Psychol 123:250–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Piaget J (1962) Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S (2014) Social looking in the domestic dog. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog behaviour and cognition: the scientific study of Canis familiaris. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 101–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rooney NJ (1999) Play behaviour of the domestic dog Canis familiaris, and its effects upon the dog–human relationship. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS (2002) An experimental study of the effects of play upon the dog–human relationship. Appl Anim Behav Sci 75:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rooney N, Bradshaw J (2014) Canine welfare science: an antidote to sentiment and myth. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog behaviour and cognition: the scientific study of Canis familiaris. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 241–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rooney NJ, Cowan S (2011) Training methods and owner–dog interactions: links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Appl Anim Behav Sci 132:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS, Robinson IH (2000) A comparison of dog–dog and dog–human play behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci 66:235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS, Robinson IH (2001) Do dogs respond to play signals given by humans? Anim Behav 61:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwab C, Huber L (2006) Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners. J Comp Psychol 120:169–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith PK, Pellegrini A (2008) Learning through play. In: Tremblay RE, Barr RG, Peters RDeV, Boivin M (eds) Encyclopedia on early childhood development. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development, Montreal, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  40. Turcsán B, Kubinyi E, Miklósi Á (2011) Trainability and boldness traits differ between dog breed clusters based on conventional breed categories and genetic relatedness. Appl Anim Behav Sci 132:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Uvnäs-Moberg K (1989) The gastrointestinal tract in growth and reproduction. Sci Am 261:78–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Vygotsky LS (1976) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In: Bruner J, Jolly A, Sylva K (eds) Play–its role in development and evolution. Basic Books, New York, pp 537–554 (Original work published 1933) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Horowitz Dog Cognition Lab, Department of PsychologyBarnard CollegeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Horowitz Dog Cognition LabBarnard CollegeNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations