Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris)

Cooper, John R.; Ashton, Clare; Bishop, Sarah; West, Rebecca; Mills, Daniel S.; Young, Robert J.

doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(02)00284-8

Cited by 125 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A human turning her back and terminating delivery of food treats is a cue with which individuals in all groups have likely had prior experience, and the majority of subjects across all groups met criterion in this condition. Furthermore, both groups of pet dogs performed above chance on the begging task with a book as the occluder, a finding consistent with Cooper et al (2003), whereas shelter dogs and wolves were typically not successful on this condition. This is consistent with the likely recent experiences of the different groups of dogs and wolves.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…However, the chimpanzee data also provide a noteworthy contrast to the behavior of the pet dogs. While the chimpanzees failed to spontaneously make a discrimination when any inanimate occluder blocked the experimenter's vision, pet dogs have been shown to reliably beg from an attentive person when the other individual has her face covered by a book (Cooper et al, 2003; Exp. 1 of the present study).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gácsi et al (2004) reported that pet dogs were more likely to beg for food from an attentive woman than from an inattentive woman; however, performance was more accurate when the inattentive woman turned her back than when she wore a blindfold. Likewise, Cooper et al (2003) found that dogs were more likely to ignore a person whose face was obscured behind a book than a bucket. The fact that a dog's performance may vary based on the visible stimulus associated with human inattention raises interesting questions about the origin of perspective-taking behavior in pet domestic dogs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dogs across a range of breeds use human communicative cues such as pointing or physical markers to find food that is hidden in one of two hiding places (controls rule out the use of olfactory cues; Cooper et al 2003;Hare & Tomasello 2005;Miklosi & Soproni 2006). In direct comparisons, dogs are even more skilled than chimpanzees at using human communicative cues when searching for food (Hare et al 2002;Brä uer et al 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The domestication hypothesis for dogs' skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008)

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…With respect to canines, Cooper et al (2003) reported first-trial data from an experiment with 15 dogs in which the Povinelli et al (1990) procedure was replicated. Thus, dogs could see that one of three locations was baited with food (but not which location).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Theory of mind in dogs: is the perspective-taking task a good test?

Roberts

Macpherson

2011

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Udell, Dorey, and Wynne (in press) have reported an experiment in which wolves, shelter dogs, and pet dogs all showed a significant preference for begging from a person who faced them (seer) over a person whose back was turned to them (blind experimenter). On tests with the blind person's eyes covered with a bucket, a book, or a camera, pet dogs showed more preference for the seer than did wolves and shelter dogs. We agree with the authors' position that most of these findings are best explained by preexperimental learning experienced by the subjects. We argue, however, that the perspective-taking task is not a good test of the domestication theory or of the theory of mind in dogs. The problem we see is that use of the perspective-taking task, combined with preexperimental learning in all the subjects, strongly biases the outcome in favor of a behavioral learning interpretation. Tasks less influenced by preexperimental training would provide less confounded tests of domestication and theory of mind.Keywords Comparative Cognition . Dogs . Theory of mind Udell, Dorey and Wynne (in press) have reported an initial study (Experiment 1) in which pet dogs, shelter dogs, and wolves chose to beg food from a person facing them with eyes uncovered (seer) or a person whose eyes were occluded in different ways (blind individual). Overall, pet dogs chose the seer more often than did shelter dogs and wolves. All types of subjects tested showed significant preference for the seer when the blind individual's back was turned to them, but only pet dogs tested indoors and outdoors showed a significant preference when a book covered the blind individual's eyes. None of the canine groups showed a significant preference for the seer when a camera covered the blind individual's eyes, and only pet dogs tested indoors significantly preferred the seer when a bucket covered the blind individual's eyes. In a second study (Experiment 2), dogs and wolves more readily learned to beg food from a seer with a bucket on her shoulder than from a blind individual with a bucket on her head.These experiments were carried out to test two different but related theories. One theory is that dogs show theory of mind or an understanding that other organisms store information and act upon it. In the context of the perspective-taking procedure, the question is whether dogs understand that a person who sees them (seer) will know that they are begging for food but that a person who does not see them (blind individual) will not. The second theory is that dogs are particularly attentive and responsive to human social cues because they were domesticated over several thousand years from wolf ancestors (Hare, Brown,

show abstract

Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris)

Cited by 125 publications

References 49 publications

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

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

The domestication hypothesis for dogs' skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008)

Theory of mind in dogs: is the perspective-taking task a good test?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About