The Effects of Familiarity on Dog-Human Play

Mitchell, Robert W.; Thompson, Nicholas S.

doi:10.2752/089279391787057314

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In AB pairs, owners pointed on average three times more for their own dog than for the unfamiliar dog. In part, this greater frequency of pointing likely resulted from dogs' generally greater playfulness with their owner than with the unfamiliar person (Mitchell & Thompson, 1990). The lone owner who pointed more with the unfamiliar dog than with her own dog also threw the ball more often with the unfamiliar dog as he sometimes chased it; her own dog largely ignored the ball.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As with reliability for coding of points, coders settled disagreements by observation, discussion, and joint decision. Note that reliability for utterances and actions during play are presented in earlier research (Mitchell, 1987;Mitchell & Thompson, 1990, 1991.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, when dealing with a competitive human who took the food that dogs knew to be hidden in one of two objects when the dogs indicated the food-containing object, some dogs refused to approach the objects (Kundey et al, 2010;Petter et al, 2009). Dogs playing with people may engage in resistance when they get a ball and drop it away from the person (drop-away), or start to retrieve a ball and then drop it only part of the way to a human player (quasi-retrieve), and some dogs engaged in refusals when they stopped chasing an object during a human's project of object-keepaway (Mitchell & Thompson, 1990, 1991. Though resistance by animals to human directives has been only sporadically attended to by researchers (Mitchell, 1999;Nance, 2013;Patterson & Linden, 1981;Philo & Wilbert, 2000;Warkentin, 2009), the idea that animals resist human authority has a long history (Hribal, 2003(Hribal, , 2010.…”

Section: Explaining Poor Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Usually, play allows the dog to "revel in being out of the person's control" (Mitchell, 2012, p. 375). Dogs and people can refuse to engage (momentarily or longer) in what the play partner is offering (e.g., a person may play object-keepaway, and the dog may stop chasing a ball), and dogs engage in activities (drop-away or quasi-retrieve the object) in which they obtain something and then, respectively, deposit it away from the play partner, or move it only partway to the partner (Mitchell & Thompson, 1990, 1991. On the other hand, humans point to influence the dog to engage in activities that they perceive to be part of playing (Rooney et al, 2001).…”

Section: Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Functions of pointing by humans, and dogs’ responses, during dog-human play between familiar and unfamiliar players

Mitchell¹,

Reed²,

Alexander³

2018

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Although much research focuses on human index finger pointing to hidden items for dogs in experimental settings, there is little research about human pointing in naturalistic interactions. We examined human pointing to dogs during 62 dog-human play interactions, spanning 4.8 hours of videotape, to determine the functions of human pointing and dogs' responses to that pointing. Participants were 26 humans and 27 dogs. Humans played with their own dog(s) and, almost always, an unfamiliar dog. Seventeen people (16 players and one passerby) pointed for 20 dogs a total of 101 times (once with a foot) during 26 interactions. Most (49.5%) points were toward an object (almost always a ball), to direct attention or action toward the object; 36.6% were to the ground in front of the (almost always familiar) pointer, directing the dog to come, and/or drop a ball the dog held, here; 10.9% directed the dog toward the designated player and/or play area; and 3.0% directed the dog to move away from a ball the dog had dropped. Humans almost always pointed such that the dog could see the point (92.1%), and pointed more with their own than with an unfamiliar dog. Dogs responded appropriately (i.e., did what the pointer requested) for only 24.7% of the visible points, more often for points to the ground than for points to objects. The proportion of dogs' appropriate responses to visible points was similar for both familiar (30%) and unfamiliar (18%) humans. Six dogs who responded appropriately to some points resisted responding appropriately to others. Future research should examine non-object directed uses of pointing with dogs and their responses in naturalistic and experimental settings, and experimentally assess diverse explanations, including resistance, when dogs and other animals fail standard pointing tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining Poor Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Playmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Functions of pointing by humans, and dogs’ responses, during dog-human play between familiar and unfamiliar players

Mitchell¹,

Reed²,

Alexander³

2018

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional perk was that dogs and people deceived each other in play, which Nick and I used to create a chapter (Mitchell and Thompson 1986b) in the book we eventually published on human and animal deception (Mitchell and Thompson 1986a). About dog-human play in general, we created a series of questions and offered answers about how disparate species could organize their activities in play to mutual benefit (Mitchell and Thompson 1986b, 1990, 1991, derived in part from our mutual appreciation of Bateson's (1972) ideas on social organization and Simpson's (1976) idea of projects in play. Analyzing videotapes to see if our answers worked was tedious, but the play interactions themselves were fun and funny to watch.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Resolution Between Mentalism and Teleonomy, or Fodder for a Continuing Dialogue?

Mitchell

2010

Integr. psych. behav.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists, including psychologists, are often disturbed by the psychological interpretation of animal behavior. Nick Thompson offered a teleonomic approach to the use of psychological terms to describe behavior that avoided the assumption that mental states (or other entities or processes) caused the behavior. I describe tensions between teleonomic and mentalistic conceptualizations of animals by some early comparative psychologists, and offer our skill at kinesthetic-visual matching as an explanation as to why humans so often assume that mental states cohere with behavior. My explanation elucidates why mentalistic interpretations of behavior remain after teleonomic description.

show abstract

Exploring the Role of Playfulness with Canine Companions in Coping with Stress: How Men Are Impacted by Human–Animal Interaction Through Calling on a Memory of Play

Harlinger

Blazina

2016

Men and Their Dogs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Effects of Familiarity on Dog-Human Play

Cited by 31 publications

References 3 publications

Functions of pointing by humans, and dogs’ responses, during dog-human play between familiar and unfamiliar players

Functions of pointing by humans, and dogs’ responses, during dog-human play between familiar and unfamiliar players

A Resolution Between Mentalism and Teleonomy, or Fodder for a Continuing Dialogue?

Exploring the Role of Playfulness with Canine Companions in Coping with Stress: How Men Are Impacted by Human–Animal Interaction Through Calling on a Memory of Play

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About