A critique and empirical assessment of Alexandra Horowitz and Julie Hecht’s “Examining dog–human play: the characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction”
Horowitz and Hecht (Anim Cog 19:779–788, 2016) presented data about activities and vocalizations during brief videotaped dog–owner play provided by owners, examined these in relation to human affect during play, and made comparisons from their results to other research on activities and vocalizations during dog–human play. In this critique, I describe problems with Horowitz and Hecht’s methodology, analyses, and evidence; in their interpretations of the data, evidence, and categorizations provided in other research, particularly my own studies of dog–human play; and in their claims of novelty for their findings. I argue that, to support their ideas about vocalizations and play types during dog–human play and their comparisons to other studies, their study requires fuller descriptions and reliability for their coding of vocalizations and play types, appropriate statistical analyses, and accurate descriptions of prior research. I also argue that their methodology provides results strikingly similar in many aspects to those of other researchers studying dog–human play, contrary to their claims of novel findings. Finally, I examine their suggestions about relationships between human affect and types of play activities and vocalizations using the videos of dog–human play I discussed in earlier publications, discovering minimal, if any, relationship.
KeywordsDog–human play Human vocalizations to dogs Affect Teasing play
I thank Emily Reed for her thorough assessment of the affect present in the videotapes of dog–human play, and Michał Pręgowski, Radhika Makecha, Karl Wuensch, Fran Dolins, Barbara Smuts, Ken Cheng, Alexandra Horowitz, Julie Hecht, and two anonymous reviewers for their advice about the manuscript.
This paper was produced without a grant or funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Robert Mitchell declares that he has no conflict of interest.
In relation to my earlier studies discussed in this paper, all applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed, and all procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Goode D (2007) Playing with my dog Katie: an ethnomethodological study of dog-human interaction. Purdue University Press, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell RW (1987) Projects, routines, and enticements in interspecies play between familiar and unfamiliar dogs and people. Ph.D. thesis, Clark University, Worcester, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell RW (1990) A theory of play. In: Bekoff M, Jamieson D (eds) Interpretation and explanation in the study of animal behavior, vol 1: interpretation, intentionality, and communication. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 197–227Google Scholar
- Mitchell RW (1994) The evolution of primate cognition: simulation, self-knowledge, and knowledge of other minds. In: Quiatt D, Itani J (eds) Hominid culture in primate perspective. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp 177–232Google Scholar
- Mitchell RW (2001) Americans’ talk to dogs during play: similarities and differences with talk to infants. Res Lang Soc Inter 34:182–210Google Scholar
- Mitchell RW (ed) (2002) Pretending and imagination in animals and children. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (1986) Deception in play between dogs and people. In: Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (eds) Deception: perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 193–204Google Scholar
- Mitchell RW, Thompson NS (1991) Projects, routines, and enticements in dog-human play. In: Bateson PPG, Klopfer PH (eds) Perspectives in ethology, vol 9. Plenum Press, New York, pp 189–216Google Scholar
- Rooney NJ (1999) Play behavior of the domestic dog Canis familiaris, and its effects upon the dog-human relationship. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, UKGoogle Scholar
- Sacks H (1992) Lectures on conversations, vol 1, 2. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Symons D (1978) Play and aggression: a study of Rhesus monkeys. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Watson DR (1987) Interdisciplinary considerations in the analysis of pro-terms. In: Button G, Lee JRE (eds) Talk and social organisation. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, pp 261–289Google Scholar