Why do dogs (Canis familiaris) select the empty container in an observational learning task?

Abstract

Many argue that dogs show unique susceptibility to human communicative signals that make them suitable for being engaged in complex co-operation with humans. It has also been revealed that socially provided information is particularly effective in influencing the behaviour of dogs even when the human's action demonstration conveys inefficient or mistaken solution of task. It is unclear, however, how the communicative nature of the demonstration context and the presence of the human demonstrator affect the dogs' objectchoice behaviour in observational learning situations. In order to unfold the effects of these factors, 76 adult pet dogs could observe a communicative or a non-communicative demonstration in which the human retrieved a tennis ball from under an opaque container while manipulating another distant and obviously empty (transparent) one. Subjects were then allowed to choose either in the presence of the demonstrator or after she left the room. Results showed a significant main effect of the demonstration context (presence or absence of the human's communicative signals), and we also found some evidence for the responsemodifying effect of the presence of the human demonstrator during the dogs' choice. That is, dogs predominantly chose the baited container, but if the demonstration context was communicative and the human was present during the dogs' choice, subjects' tendency to select the baited container has been reduced. In agreement with the studies showing sensitivity to human's communicative signals in dogs, these findings point to a special form of social influence in observational learning situations when it comes to learning about causally opaque and less efficient (compared to what comes natural to the dog) action demonstrations.

Do Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) Make Counterproductive Choices Because They Are Sensitive to Human Ostensive Cues?

“…Current results highlight the potent effect of stimulus enhancement (in this case handling the food) as a social influencing/learning mechanism and are somewhat at odds with other published work where stimulus enhancement unaccompanied by communicative cues did not influence the dogs' choices [16], [19], [21]. It is perhaps interesting to note however, that in both the Topal et al studies [19], [21] and the Kupan et al study [16] toys were used as the target object, whereas in our own study food was the source of interest.…”

“…It is perhaps interesting to note however, that in both the Topal et al studies [19], [21] and the Kupan et al study [16] toys were used as the target object, whereas in our own study food was the source of interest. The discrepancy in results may thus be linked to the use of these different stimuli.…”

“…In one study [15] dogs were found to rely more on a human pointing gesture than on their own olfactory abilities when attempting to obtain hidden food, whereas another study found that dogs would select a visibly non-baited container more after a communicative than a non-communicative demonstration by the experimenter, if the experimenter then stayed in the dog's presence [16]. Finally, dogs that preferentially choose the larger of two food quantities when alone, can be induced to lose that preference when their owner (or a stranger [17]) vocally and behaviourally shows an interest for the smaller food quantity [18].…”

The World from a Dog’s Point of View

“…Erdőhegyi, Topál, Zsófia, & Miklósi, 2007;Kupán, Miklósi, György, & Topál, 2011;Topál, Gergely, et al, 2009). Erdőhegyi, Topál, Zsófia, & Miklósi, 2007;Kupán, Miklósi, György, & Topál, 2011;Topál, Gergely, et al, 2009).…”

Behavioural coordination of dogs in a cooperative problem-solving task with a conspecific and a human partner

“…Secondly, domestication is thought to have specifically selected for socio-cognitive abilities to facilitate dog–human interactions (Miklósi et al 2004; Csányi 2005; Kubinyi et al 2007; Miklósi 2009). Such socio-cognitive abilities are shown both in the flexibility of dogs to produce visual and acoustic signals, arguably to communicate with humans (Schassburger 1993; Yin 2002; Pongrácz et al 2005; Molnár et al 2008), and in their ability to respond to such signals when produced by humans (use of visual signals: Miklósi et al 2000, 2003; Hare et al 2002; Virányi et al 2004, 2006; Riedel et al 2008; Kupán et al 2011; use of acoustic signals: McConnell 1990; Kaminski et al 2004). …”