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

Abstract

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,

Dogs demonstrate perspective taking based on geometrical gaze following in a Guesser–Knower task

“…Dogs may avoid people who are looking at the ceiling, a behaviour that dogs usually do not see in everyday life conditions in association with food provisioning, and for which they therefore have no associations. Pre-experimental learning about human behaviour and its consequences may fully account for the results in the GA test (Gagliardi et al 1995; Roberts and Macpherson 2011; Udell et al 2011; Viranyi and Range 2011). …”

What Dogs Understand about Humans

“…In their overall performance, dogs did not choose the knower. This drop in accuracy could be attributed to dogs' confused memories of the roles of the knower and guesser in the current trial with memories of the roles they had played on previous trials (Roberts & Macpherson, 2011). Thus, if there was an effect, it was not very strong.…”

“…Cooper et al (2003) reported that in the first trial 14/15 dogs (93%) chose the location pointed to by the knower (Cooper et al, 2003;Roberts & Macpherson, 2011) and ignored the pointing cue of the guesser. However, as Udell and Wynne (2011) point out, the experiment referred to in Cooper et al (2003) has never been properly published.…”

Reevaluating canine perspective-taking behavior

“…We are grateful to Roberts and Macpherson (2011) for reminding us of the tantalizing first-trial data related in Cooper et al (2003). Cooper et al summarized results from a version of Povinelli, Nelson and Boysen (1990) "guesser--knower" experiment carried out on 15 dogs.…”

“…Roberts and Macpherson (2011) suggest that alternative experimental designs might have given the theory-of-mind theory of canine behavior a better chance over lower-level interpretations of the animals' behavior. To this end, they suggest that had the "seeing" experimenter turned her back but looked over her shoulder, this might have constituted a more compelling test.…”