No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Dogs have been shown to use human-directed gazing behaviour and gaze alternation in numerous contexts; however, it is still unclear whether this behaviour can be considered an intentional and referential communicative act. In the current study, adult dogs and preverbal toddlers were tested using the classic unsolvable task paradigm, but varying the attentional stance of the participating audience (the experimenter and the caregiver). The aims were to assess (1) whether dogs and toddlers would use gaze alternation behaviour in similar manners when the task became unsolvable, and (2) whether both dogs and toddlers would take into account the attentional stance of the audience when initiating a communicative interaction. Results indicated that both toddlers and dogs increased their gaze alternation behaviour between the apparatus and caregiver when the task became unsolvable, and toddlers also showed an increase in pointing behaviour. Furthermore, both species showed a capacity to take into account the attentional stance of the audience when manifesting gaze alternation behaviours towards them. Taken together, these results suggest that gaze alternation is both an intentional and referential communicative act and that both species can take into account the need for audience attention when communicating with them.

Dogs appear to be sensitive to human ostensive communicative cues in a variety of situations, however there is still a measure of controversy as to the way in which these cues influence human-dog interactions. There is evidence for instance that dogs can be led into making evaluation errors in a quantity discrimination task, for example losing their preference for a larger food quantity if a human shows a preference for a smaller one, yet there is, so far, no explanation for this phenomenon. Using a modified version of this task, in the current study we investigated whether non-social, social or communicative cues (alone or in combination) cause dogs to go against their preference for the larger food quantity. Results show that dogs' evaluation errors are indeed caused by a social bias, but, somewhat contrary to previous studies, they highlight the potent effect of stimulus enhancement (handling the target) in influencing the dogs' response. A mild influence on the dog's behaviour was found only when different ostensive cues (and no handling of the target) were used in combination, suggesting their cumulative effect. The discussion addresses possible motives for discrepancies with previous studies suggesting that both the intentionality and the directionality of the action may be important in causing dogs' social biases.

A number of studies have recently investigated personality traits in non-human species, with the dog gaining popularity as a subject species for research in this area. Recent research has shown the consistency of personality traits across both context and time for adult dogs, both when using questionnaire based methods of investigation and behavioural analyses of the dogs’ behaviour. However, only a few studies have assessed the correspondence between these two methods, with results varying considerably across studies. Furthermore, most studies have focused on adult dogs, despite the fact that an understanding of personality traits in young puppies may be important for research focusing on the genetic basis of personality traits. In the current study, we sought to evaluate the correspondence between a questionnaire based method and the in depth analyses of the behaviour of 2-month old puppies in an open-field test in which a number of both social and non-social stimuli were presented to the subjects. We further evaluated consistency of traits over time by re-testing a subset of puppies. The correspondence between methods was high and test- retest consistency (for the main trait) was also good using both evaluation methods. Results showed clear factors referring to the two main personality traits ‘extroversion,’ (i.e. the enthusiastic, exuberant approach to the stimuli) and ‘neuroticism,’ (i.e. the more cautious and fearful approach to the stimuli), potentially similar to the shyness-boldness dimension found in previous studies. Furthermore, both methods identified an ‘amicability’ dimension, expressing the positive interactions the pups directed at the humans stranger, and a ‘reservedness’ dimension which identified pups who largely chose not to interact with the stimuli, and were defined as quiet and not nosey in the questionnaire.

No abstract

A considerable number of studies have reported differences among dog breeds with respect to their genetic profile, cognitive abilities or personality traits. Each dog breed is normally treated as a homogeneous group, however, researchers have recently questioned whether the behavioural profile of modern breeds still reflects their historical function or if the intense divergent selective pressures and geographical barriers have created a more fragmented picture. The majority of studies attempting to assess and compare modern breeds' personality focused on the evaluation of adult dogs where the potential effects of environmental/human factors on the dogs' behaviour are hard to discern from their genetic heritage. In the following study, we aimed at investigating between-and within-breed differences in the personality of two-months-old puppies by direct behavioural observation of 377 puppies from 12 breeds. Results showed that there was no effect of sex, however both breed and litter, significantly affected all personality traits. Breed on average explained 10% of the variance, whereas the effect of litter was noticeably higher, explaining on average 23% of the variance. Taken together, our results suggest that breed does have some influence on personality traits, but they also highlight the importance of taking litter effects into account.The assessment of dogs' personality has gained increasing attention in the last decades for its potential applicability 1-4 , as well as for more theoretical aspects, such as the genetic basis of complex behaviour 5,6 . One of the topics, strictly linked to dog personality that is still being debated, is whether dogs from different breeds significantly diverge on specific behavioural traits, potentially reflecting their historical function (original selection to optimise their performance in specific tasks as stated by the kennel clubs standards) 7-9 . Breed profiling has largely been based on historical and anecdotal notions rather than scientific evidence 8 . However, more recently scientific attempts to provide reliable profiling of modern breeds, taking into account the large within-breed variability due to different selective pressures and geographical barriers, have been carried out 7,8,[10][11][12] . Svartberg 7 , for example, found that within the same breeds, irrespective of their historical function, individuals in lines selected for companionship showed high levels of playfulness, whereas selection for use in dog shows correlated positively with fearfulness and negatively with playfulness, aggressiveness, and curiosity. However, thus far, the majority of studies attempting to assess breed personality have been carried out using questionnaire-based methods 8,13,14 and have largely focused on the evaluation of adult dogs 7, 9 . Yet, behavioural variability towards different stimuli and situations can be detected also in puppies [15][16][17][18] and arguably, if there are breed differences in temperament, observing these in puppies would provide stronger evidence, since ...