Dogs do not demonstrate a human-like bias to defer to communicative cues
Human children and domesticated dogs learn from communicative cues, such as pointing, in highly similar ways. In two experiments, we investigate whether dogs are biased to defer to these cues in the same way as human children. We tested dogs on a cueing task similar to one previously conducted in human children. Dogs received conflicting information about the location of a treat from a Guesser and a Knower, who either used communicative cues (i.e., pointing; Experiments 1 and 2), non-communicative physical cues (i.e., a wooden marker; Experiment 1), or goal-directed actions (i.e., grasping; Experiment 2). Although human children tested previously struggled to override inaccurate information provided by the Guesser when she used communicative cues, in contrast to physical cues or goal-directed actions, dogs were more likely to override the Guesser’s information when she used communicative cues or goal-directed actions than when she used non-communicative physical cues. Given that dogs did not show the same selective bias towards the Guesser’s information in communicative contexts, these findings provide clear evidence that dogs do not demonstrate a human-like bias to defer to communicative cues. Instead, dogs may be more likely to critically evaluate information presented via communicative cues than either physical or non-communicative cues.
KeywordsSocial learning Theory of mind Canine cognition Comparative psychology
We would like to thank the members of the Canine Cognition Center at Yale for their helpful assistance and feedback, particularly Alondra Arguello, Mikey Bogese, Arianna Neal, Astrid Hengartner, Jack Schleifer, Kacie Saxer-Taulbee, Lena Nasrallah, Molly Byrne, Nele Löecher, Nikita Cotzias, and Emily Reagan. AMJ was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1122492, YH was supported by a University of Rochester Discover Grant for Undergraduate Research, and the Canine Cognition Center at Yale was supported by an NSF REU grant (SMS-1659085). All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of and the approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Yale University (#2014-11616).
- Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R Package Version 0.999999-0).Google Scholar
- Gácsi, M., Györi, B., Gyoöri, B., Virányi, Z., Kubinyi, E., Range, F., … Miklósi, A. (2009). Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: Selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. PLoS One, 4, e6584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006584 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Hare, B., Plyusnina, I., Ignacio, N., Schepina, O., Stepika, A., Wrangham, R., & Trut, L. (2005). Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Current Biology, 15(3), 226-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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). Animal Behaviour, e1-e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
- Kuhl, P.K., Andruski, J.E., Chistovich, I.A., Chistovich, L.A., Kozhevnikova, E.V., Ryskina, V.L., Stolyarova, E.I., Sundberg, U., & Lacerda, F. (1997), Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science, 277, 684–686. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5326.684 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kundey, S., De Los Reyes, A., Arbuthnot, J., Allen, R., Coshun, A., Molina, S., & Royer, E. (2010). Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) response to dishonest human points. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 23, 201–215.Google Scholar
- Pongrácz, P., Hegedüs, D., Sanjurjo, B., Kővári, A., & Miklósi, Á. (2013). “We will work for you”–Social influence may suppress individual food preferences in a communicative situation in dogs. Learning and Motivation, 44(4), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2013.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00114-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Gluckman, A. (1997). Comprehension of novel communicative signs by apes and human children. Child Development, 68(6), 1067-1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01985.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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). Animal Cognition, 11, 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0127-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar