Who’s Getting a Head Start? Mesocephalic Dogs in Still Images Are Attributed More Positively Valenced Emotions Than Dogs of Other Cephalic Index Groups

Abstract

Assumptions about dogs’ personality are influenced by their appearance, which may lead to differences in ownership styles and subsequent canine welfare. The influence of canine appearance on observers’ emotion attributions to dogs remains largely unexplored. This study investigated whether canine head shape is related to how both dog owners and non-dog owning adults in the U.K. attribute emotions to still images of dogs, and in the case of dog owners, to their own dogs. Attachment, respondent personality and dog trainability were assessed as potential influences on emotional attribution in owners. Overall, 2451 participant responses were received. Still images of mesocephalic dogs were attributed primary and positively valenced emotion with more strength and frequency than other groups. Mesocephalic images were also attributed negatively valenced emotions less frequently and with less strength than other groups. Apart from empathy, no significant differences were found in emotional attribution to owned dogs of different head shapes; however, human personality influenced attribution of emotions to owned dogs. The finding that some dogs are attributed emotions more readily based on their appearance alone has applied importance, given, for example, the potential for misattribution of positive emotions to dogs in negative emotional states, and potential prejudice against dogs considered in negative emotional states.

That brachycephalic look: Infant-like facial appearance in short-muzzled dog breeds

“…Moving forward to consider the future popularity of cute-looking, short-muzzled dogs, it is important to note that the ‘kindchenschema’ effect shows some cultural dependence, with owners in different countries varying in their preference for brachycephalic pets (see Farnworth et al 2018 regarding cat breed preferences; see also Archer & Monton 2011 regarding the effects of pet ownership). These findings, combined with the fact that many non-brachycephalic dogs also remain highly popular as pets (Brincat et al 2022 ), indicate that people’s preferences do vary, and ‘kindchenschema’ features are far from being the only determinant of breed preference. Cultural fashions come and go, so something that seems like a permanent change or progression at one point in history may be only a short-lived trend (Herzog & Elias 2004 ; Herzog et al 2004 ; Herzog 2006 ; Ghirlanda et al 2013 , 2014 ; Skipper 2021 ).…”

Differential behavioral aging trajectories according to body size, expected lifespan, and head shape in dogs

“…Finally, we also had to create head-shape categories, even though researchers in this field clearly favor a continuous cephalic index scale [ 42 ] due to possible within-breed variation [ 60 ], and because there are no generally accepted cut-off values for the categories based on biological or clinical considerations [ 49 ]. By creating three equal-sized groups, we aimed to categorize our subjects in the least biased way, however, the threshold values were partly determined by the breeds’ popularity, and thus there is a risk that these groups do not represent the head shape categories well.…”

“…We were able to assign a cephalic index (CI) estimates to 7,241 individuals representing 99 breeds (see breed-level details in SI 1). Since there are also no officially accepted cut-off values in the literature for defining specific head shape categories based on the cephalic index, we used the method as in the case of the lifespan groups and also as applied in [ 49 ] and divided the subjects into three approximately equal-sized subpopulations. Although we determined the cut-off values based on the N of dogs in each group, the resulting values also – accidentally – match those used in anatomy [ 41 ]: breeds with CI lower than 51 were classified as dolichocephalic ( N = 2,339), breeds with CI ranging between 51 and 59 as mesocephalic ( N = 2,437), and breeds with CI above 59 as brachycephalic ( N = 2,465) (Table S1 in SI 2).…”