↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

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

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
20 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Do Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) Make Counterproductive Choices Because They Are Sensitive to Human Ostensive Cues?
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0035437
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Marshall-Pescini, Chiara Passalacqua, Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini, Paola Valsecchi, Emanuela Prato-Previde

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 3 3%
Hungary 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 98 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 22%
Researcher 20 19%
Other 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Master 9 8%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 28%
Psychology 27 25%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 21 20%