Unwilling or unable? Using three-dimensional tracking to evaluate dogs' reactions to differing human intentions

Abstract

The extent to which dogs ( Canis familiaris ) as a domesticated species understand human intentions is still a matter of debate. The unwilling–unable paradigm has been developed to examine whether nonhuman animals are sensitive to intentions underlying human actions. In this paradigm, subjects tended to wait longer in the testing area when presented with a human that appeared willing but unable to transfer food to them compared to an unwilling (teasing) human. In the present study, we conducted the unwilling–unable paradigm with dogs using a detailed behavioural analysis based on machine-learning driven three-dimensional tracking. Throughout two preregistered experiments, we found evidence, in line with our prediction, that dogs reacted more impatiently to actions signalling unwillingness to transfer food rather than inability. These differences were consistent through two different samples of pet dogs (total n = 96) and they were evident also in the machine-learning generated three-dimensional tracking data. Our results therefore provide robust evidence that dogs distinguish between similar actions (leading to the same outcome) associated with different intentions. However, their reactions did not lead to any measurable preference for one experimenter over the other in a subsequent transfer phase. We discuss different cognitive mechanisms that might underlie dogs’ performance in this paradigm.

Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?

“…We do not know, nonetheless, whether the intentionality or unintentionality of the cooperative act was evident to subjects in our study or in the previous reciprocity studies with dogs (Gfrerer & Taborsky, 2017, 2018; McGetrick et al., 2021). It is particularly noteworthy, however, that in the context of food giving by humans, dogs have been shown to distinguish between similar actions that have different underlying intentions, regardless of the outcome (Völter et al., 2023).…”

Why do dogs wag their tails?

“…On the contrary, they show left-biased wagging, hence right hemisphere activation, for stimuli that elicit withdrawal (e.g. when shown an unfamiliar, dominant dog or when in aggressive situations) [ 8 , 18 – 20 ]. Dogs also perceive wagging asymmetries in robot dogs [ 21 ] and conspecifics [ 22 ].…”

“…To better characterize the behaviour as a whole and distinguish between types of tail wagging, our first suggestion is to perform precise behavioural analyses of high-quality tail wagging videos [ 20 ], in concert with newly developed automated tracking tools specific to this oscillatory behaviour [ 99 ]. By simultaneously quantifying the parameters mentioned above, we can start to determine whether and how they relate to each other.…”

Domestic dogs as a comparative model for social neuroscience: Advances and challenges

“…Unlike rhesus macaques, dogs can match actions in a "Do-as-I-do" training paradigm (Fugazza et al, 2019;Fugazza & Miklósi, 2014;Topál et al, 2006), they spontaneously match human actions already as puppies (Fugazza et al, 2023), and even over-imitate action sequences demonstrated by their human caregivers (Huber et al, 2018(Huber et al, , 2020. Furthermore, dogs also share more complex socio-cognitive abilities with humans: they can perform visual perspective taking (Catala et al, 2017;Maginnity & Grace, 2014; and see Huber & Lonardo, 2023 for review), respond to unfair treatment (i.e., inequity aversion; Brucks et al, 2016;Essler et al, 2017;Range et al, 2009;McGetrick & Range, 2018 for review), form expectations about physical events (Völter, Tomašić, et al, 2023;Völter & Huber, 2021a, 2021b and are sensitive to humans' intentions, knowledge or beliefs (Lonardo et al, 2021;Schünemann et al, 2021;Virányi et al, 2006;Völter, Lonardo, et al, 2023). Finally, dogs and humans also display relevant differences in their abilities and behaviours, apart from unique human abilities such as language.…”