Can your dog read your mind? Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking

Abstract

Prior studies have documented the domestic dog's (Canis lupus familiaris) sensitivity to human attentional state, including a tendency to preferentially beg for food from attentive individuals and an ability to selectively perform forbidden behaviors when humans are not looking. Due to the success of dogs on perspective-taking tasks, some have hypothesized that domestic dogs may have theory of mind, or the ability to infer what other individuals know. Here we provide the first evidence that nondomesticated canids, grey wolves (Canis lupus), are also sensitive to human attentional state under some conditions. We also demonstrate that dogs do not display an undifferentiated sensitivity to all visual cues of attentional state. Rather, dogs are more sensitive to stimuli encountered in their home environment. Some dogs perform poorly on perspective-taking tasks. These findings have important implications for the interpretation of research designed to understand complex social cognition across species.

Reevaluating canine perspective-taking behavior

“…We agree further that the wolves tested by Udell et al (2011) are not typical of the whole population of Canis lupus lupus, because they were socialized to humans early in life, and experience continued levels of interaction with humans more similar to that typical of pet dogs than of wild wolves. However, we part ways with Miklósi and Topál when they claim that these wolves are at an advantage in comparison with the average pet dog, because they have had some exposure to clicker training.…”

“…The clicker training they received during their lifetimes was not extensive, in comparison with that of average pet dogs, and was unrelated to the begging task utilized in Udell et al (2011). Miklósi and Topál (2011) further argued that the wolf and dog comparisons from their own research are more valid than those we reported in Udell et al (2011), because their canid subjects were reared in a more controlled environment, with identical socialization experiences between dog and wolf subjects. However, according to their prior publications (for a review, see Kubinyi, Virányi, & Miklósi, 2007), individual dog and wolf subjects were raised at different houses in youth and were taken by their caretakers to a wide range of diverse environments-including formal training classesmany of which were not experienced by all individuals.…”

“…To argue, as we do, that domestication is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain domestic dogs' sensitivity to attentional state or responsiveness to human gestures is not to say that genetic domestication has had no effect on the behavior of domestic dogs (see also Udell et al, 2010b). Instead, we suggest that the results in Udell, Dorey and Wynne (2011), like prior pointing studies (e.g., Udell, Dorey and Wynne 2008), demonstrate that domestication is not necessary to account for dogs' responsiveness to human stimuli, because a number of nondomesticated species demonstrate the capacity to succeed on such tasks. These include not only wolves (Gácsi, Gyori, Virányi, Kubinyi, Range, Belenyi, & Miklósi, 2009;Udell et al, 2008;Udell et al, 2011), but also bats (Hall, Udell, Dorey, Walsh, & Wynne, 2011), dolphins (Pack & Herman, 2004), fur seals (Scheumann & Call, 2004), and jackdaws (Von Bayern & Emery, 2009).…”

“…However, we part ways with Miklósi and Topál when they claim that these wolves are at an advantage in comparison with the average pet dog, because they have had some exposure to clicker training. The wolves in Udell et al (2011) were not, and have never been, "show" animals. The clicker training they received during their lifetimes was not extensive, in comparison with that of average pet dogs, and was unrelated to the begging task utilized in Udell et al (2011).…”

“…The wolves in Udell et al (2011) were not, and have never been, "show" animals. The clicker training they received during their lifetimes was not extensive, in comparison with that of average pet dogs, and was unrelated to the begging task utilized in Udell et al (2011). Miklósi and Topál (2011) further argued that the wolf and dog comparisons from their own research are more valid than those we reported in Udell et al (2011), because their canid subjects were reared in a more controlled environment, with identical socialization experiences between dog and wolf subjects.…”