Audience effect on domestic dogs’ behavioural displays and facial expressions

Abstract

In the present study we investigated the influence of positive and negative arousal situations and the presence of an audience on dogs’ behavioural displays and facial expressions. We exposed dogs to positive anticipation, non-social frustration and social frustration evoking test sessions and measured pre and post-test salivary cortisol concentrations. Cortisol concentration did not increase during the tests and there was no difference in pre or post-test concentrations in the different test conditions, excluding a different level of arousal. Displacement behaviours of “looking away” and “sniffing the environment” occurred more in the frustration-evoking situations compared to the positive anticipation and were correlated with cortisol concentrations. “Ears forward” occurred more in the positive anticipation condition compared to the frustration-evoking conditions, was positively influenced by the presence of an audience, and negatively correlated to the pre-test cortisol concentrations, suggesting it may be a good indicator of dogs’ level of attention. “Ears flattener”, “blink”, “nose lick”, “tail wagging” and “whining” were associated with the presence of an audience but were not correlated to cortisol concentrations, suggesting a communicative component of these visual displays. These findings are a first step to systematically test which subtle cues could be considered communicative signals in domestic dogs.

Appeasement function of displacement behaviours? Dogs’ behavioural displays exhibited towards threatening and neutral humans

“…Displacement behaviours of “blinking”, “nose licking” and “lip wiping” were positively associated with a “non-reactive” attitude both in the threatening and in the neutral condition. A recent study from our group found that these patterns are exhibited with higher probability in a frustration evoking situation (denial of food reward) when a human partner was visible compared to when it was not visible, suggesting a possible communicative valence of these visual signals (Pedretti et al 2022 ). Furthermore, a previous study by Firnkes and colleagues found that lips licking is displayed more frequently in the mild threatening/friendly approach compared to a threatening screaming and physical threat approach (Firnkes et al 2017 ) and it was frequently associated with active submissive behaviours (ears flattened, tail wagging, crouched posture), suggesting a potential function in mediating social encounters.…”

“…Furthermore, a previous study by Firnkes and colleagues found that lips licking is displayed more frequently in the mild threatening/friendly approach compared to a threatening screaming and physical threat approach (Firnkes et al 2017 ) and it was frequently associated with active submissive behaviours (ears flattened, tail wagging, crouched posture), suggesting a potential function in mediating social encounters. Considering results of both studies these signals are meaningful in a social context (Pedretti et al 2022 ); however, their function is not limited to a potential conflict situation (Firnkes et al 2017 ). The appeasement function is thus not fully confirmed: although these behaviours were exhibited predominantly by dogs that lacked offensive/defensive motivation (“non-reactive” dogs), there was not a higher frequency of such behaviours in the more conflictual vs. neutral context as expected.…”

“…It is worth noting that even though previous studies have shown that dogs can discriminate between smiling and non-smiling human faces (Nagasawa et al 2011 ), and can indeed differentiate between the different approaches of the TAT test (Gácsi et al 2013 ; Vas et al 2005 ), dogs with a “non-reactive” attitude may perceive both conditions as equally ambiguous, thereby performing a series of displacement behaviours in both contexts. Thus, these behaviours may carry a communicative valence linked with non-aggressive intentions (Pedretti et al 2022 ); however, their appeasement function cannot be confirmed yet. Indeed, Aloff ( 2005 ) suggests that they may be used as a means to manage dogs’ personal space in any social interaction, and not only in a conflict-ridden situation.…”

When the owner does not know: comparing puppies and adult dogs’ showing behavior

“…Furthermore, in Phase 4, they wagged their tail more compared to the other phases. A recent study showed how tail wagging is associated with the presence of a human audience, and not linked with measures of arousal, suggesting a possible communicative intent in the expression of this behavior (Pedretti et al 2022 ).…”

Explainable automated recognition of emotional states from canine facial expressions: the case of positive anticipation and frustration

“…The presence of an audience in an emotional context is an important element to be considered when investigating facial expressions (of emotions) in dogs, as shown by a recent study of Pedretti et al 24 . Similarly to 19 , 22 , the authors also exposed dogs to positive anticipation, and non-social and non-social frustration, evoking test sessions.…”