Abstract
Domestic dogs have proved to be extremely successful in finding hidden food following a series of human social cues such as pointing (an extended hand and index finger indicating the location of the reward), or body position, among many other variants. There is controversy about the mechanisms responsible for these communicative skills in dogs. On the one hand, a hypothesis states that dogs have complex cognitive processes such as a theory of mind, which allow them to attribute intent to the human pointing gesture. A second, more parsimonious, hypothesis proposes that these skills depend on associative learning processes. The purpose of this paper is to provide data that may shed some light on the discussion by looking into two learning processes by using an object choice task: the effect of interference between stimuli on the preference for human social cues and the effect of generalization of the response to novel human social stimuli. The first study revealed that previous training using a physical cue (container location) may hamper the learning of a novel human social cue (distal cross-pointing). The results of the second study indicated stimulus generalization. Dogs learnt a novel cue (distal cross-pointing) faster due to previous experience with a similar cue (proximal pointing), as compared to dogs confronted by a less similar cue (body position) or dogs with no previous experience. In sum, these findings support the hypothesis about the important role of associative learning in interspecific communication mechanisms of domestic dogs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2004) Visual perspective taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Appl Anim Behav Sci 88:299–317
Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psych 120:38–47
Cooper JJ, Ashton C, Bishop S, West R, Mills DS, Young RJ (2003) Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 81:229–244
Elgier AM, Jakovcevic A, Barrera G, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2009) Communication between domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans: dogs are good learners. Behav Process 81:402–408
Erdöhegyi A, Topál J, Virányi Z, Miklósi A (2007) Dog-logic: inferential reasoning in a two-way choice task and its restricted use. Anim Behav 74:725–737
Guttman N, Kalish HI (1956) Discriminability and stimulus generalization. J Exp Psych 51:79–88
Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 9:439–444
Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evol Comm 2:137–159
Hare B, Rosati A, Kaminski J, Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M (2010) The domestication hypothesis for dogs’ skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008). Anim Behav 79:e1–e6
Heyes CM (1998) Theory of mind in nonhuman primates. Behav Brain Sci 21:101–148
Horowitz A (2011) Theory of mind in dogs? Examining method and concept. Learn Behav. doi:10.3758/s13420-011-0041-7
Kamin LJ (1968) “Atention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In: Jones MR (ed) Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: aversive stimulation. University of Miami Press, Florida, pp 9–33
Lakatos G, Soproni K, Doka A, Miklosi A (2009) A comparative approach to dogs’ and human infants’ comprehension of various forms of pointing gestures. Anim Cogn 12:621–631
Leavens DA (2004) Review of pointing: where language, culture and cognition meet. Cogn Sys Res 5:157–165
Leavens DA, Russell JL, Hopkins WD (2005) Intentionality as measured in the persistence and elaboration of communication by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Child Dev 76:291–306
Miklósi A (2009) Evolutionary approach to communication between humans and dogs. Vet Res Comm 33:53–59
Miklósi A, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121
Miller RR, Escobar M (2002) Associative interference between cues and between outcomes presented together and presented apart: an integration. Behav Process 57:163–185
Pavlov IP (1927) Conditioned reflexes. Oxford University Press, London
Petter M, Musolino E, Roberts W, Cole M (2009) Can dogs (Canis familiaris) detect human deception? Behav Process 82:109–118
Pettersson H, Kaminski J, Herrmann E, Tomasello M (2011) Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 133:235–245
Pineño O, Matute H (2005) Outcome similarity modulates retroactive interference between cues trained apart. Psicológica 26:281–292
Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P (2008) Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Anim Cogn 11:167–174
Premack D (1995) Cause/induced motion: Intention/spontaneous motion. In: Changeux JP (ed) Origins of the human brain. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, New York, pp 286–309
Siegel S, Hearst E, George N, O’Neal E (1968) Generalization gradients obtained from individual subjects following classical conditioning. J Exp Psych 78:171–174
Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psych 115:122–126
Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V (2002) Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. J Comp Psych 116:27–34
Szetei V, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V (2003) When dogs seem to lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and owner. Appl Anim Behav Sci 83:141–152
Thorpe WH (1964) Learning and instinct in animals. Methuen, London
Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2010) Ontogeny and phylogeny: both are essential to human-sensitive behaviour in the genus Canis. Anim Behav 79:e9–e14
Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2011) Reevaluating canine perspective-taking behavior. Learn Behav. doi:10.3758/s13420-011-0043-5
Wisniewski MG, Church BA, Mercado E (2009) Learning-related shifts in generalization gradients for complex sounds. Learn Behav 37:325–335
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our gratitude to Lic. Gustavo Bianco for his cooperation and to all the owners who kindly participated in these studies. Special thanks to Dr. Claudio Pereira who kindly collaborated with the figures design and to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Also we appreciate the collaboration of Rosa María Torlaschi for the manuscript translation. This work was supported under the Projects PICT 2005 N° 38020 and PICT 2010 N° 0350, National Agency of Science and Technology (ANPCyT).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Angel M. Elgier, Adriana Jakovcevic contributed equally to this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elgier, A.M., Jakovcevic, A., Mustaca, A.E. et al. Pointing following in dogs: are simple or complex cognitive mechanisms involved?. Anim Cogn 15, 1111–1119 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0534-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0534-6