No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Dogs have been shown to use human-directed gazing behaviour and gaze alternation in numerous contexts; however, it is still unclear whether this behaviour can be considered an intentional and referential communicative act. In the current study, adult dogs and preverbal toddlers were tested using the classic unsolvable task paradigm, but varying the attentional stance of the participating audience (the experimenter and the caregiver). The aims were to assess (1) whether dogs and toddlers would use gaze alternation behaviour in similar manners when the task became unsolvable, and (2) whether both dogs and toddlers would take into account the attentional stance of the audience when initiating a communicative interaction. Results indicated that both toddlers and dogs increased their gaze alternation behaviour between the apparatus and caregiver when the task became unsolvable, and toddlers also showed an increase in pointing behaviour. Furthermore, both species showed a capacity to take into account the attentional stance of the audience when manifesting gaze alternation behaviours towards them. Taken together, these results suggest that gaze alternation is both an intentional and referential communicative act and that both species can take into account the need for audience attention when communicating with them.

Dogs appear to be sensitive to human ostensive communicative cues in a variety of situations, however there is still a measure of controversy as to the way in which these cues influence human-dog interactions. There is evidence for instance that dogs can be led into making evaluation errors in a quantity discrimination task, for example losing their preference for a larger food quantity if a human shows a preference for a smaller one, yet there is, so far, no explanation for this phenomenon. Using a modified version of this task, in the current study we investigated whether non-social, social or communicative cues (alone or in combination) cause dogs to go against their preference for the larger food quantity. Results show that dogs' evaluation errors are indeed caused by a social bias, but, somewhat contrary to previous studies, they highlight the potent effect of stimulus enhancement (handling the target) in influencing the dogs' response. A mild influence on the dog's behaviour was found only when different ostensive cues (and no handling of the target) were used in combination, suggesting their cumulative effect. The discussion addresses possible motives for discrepancies with previous studies suggesting that both the intentionality and the directionality of the action may be important in causing dogs' social biases.