Beyond the provable?

Reading Kujala’s (2017) target article, I wondered whether we really need to approach the issue of animals’ emotions the traditional way, asking whether animals have emotions that are identical, similar or precursors to those of humans. As an ethologist, I prefer to examine psychological phenomena from an evolutionary perspective, focusing on Tinbergen’s (1963) four questions (Bateson & Laland 2013)

On the utilisation of social animals as a model for social robotics

Social robotics is becoming a driving field in building artificial agents. The possibility to construct agents that can engage in meaningful social interaction with humans presents new challenges for the engineers. In general social robotics has been inspired dominantly by human psychology and aimed for building human-like robots. Only a small subcategory of companion robots (also referred to as robotic pets) was build to mimic animals. In the opinion essay we argue that all social robots should be seen as companions and more conceptual emphasis should be put on the inter-specific interaction between humans and social robots. This view is underlined by the means of an ethological analysis, and critical evaluation of present day companion robots. We suggest that human-animal interaction provides a rich source of knowledge for designing social robots that are able to interact with humans under a wide range of conditions

The effect of the owner’ s personality on the behaviour of owner-dog dyads

We describe the relationships between dog owners’ personality attributes (assessed via questionnaire), their behaviours and the dog’s behaviours observed during brief dog-owner and dog-stranger interactions (N = 78). Interactions comprised the owner commanding the dog to sit, and the stranger showing a ball to the restrained dog and then hiding it. Owners scoring higher on neuroticism and openness used more commands (gestural and verbal) when asking the dog to sit, and the dogs of owners higher on neuroticism obeyed with a longer latency and spent more time looking at the stranger. More extraverted owners praised their dog more, and it took longer for their dogs to look at the stranger but they spent more time looking at the stranger, whereas dogs of more agreeable owners spent more time looking at the ball. Based on these results we conclude that some aspects of owners’ personality appear to be tied to their dog’s attentional concerns

The relationship between functional breed selection and attachment pattern in family dogs (canis familiaris)

Adult dogs show similar behaviour pattern towards their owners as human infants towards their caregivers among experimental conditions, where the attachment behaviour is activated because of the moderately stressful situation. Meanwhile the capacity to form attachment towards the owner is considered as part of the domestication history of dogs, in more recent times dogs were selected for often very different work-related behavioural phenotypes. For instance, ‘cooperative’ dog breeds, like shepherd dogs, typically work in visual contact with the handler, while the ‘independent’ breeds, such as the hounds or sled dogs, work independently. We investigated whether cooperative and non-cooperative working dogs would also show different patterns in their attachment behaviour. We tested independent (N = 29) and cooperative (N = 28) dogs from various working breeds in the Strange Situation Test. To describe the subjects’ behaviour, we used a scoring system with three main factors (Attachment, Acceptance, Anxiety). We did not find any significant between-group difference in the attachment pattern of the two main working dog types (Attachment: P = 0.499; Anxiety P = 0.200; Acceptance P = 0.339). Within-breed differences may be stronger than between-breed differences in this situation, while it is also possible that owners of different breeds handle their dogs differently. Our results support the theory that attachment to the owner is a fundamentally similar feature in socialized dogs, and subsequent functional breed selection may rather influence the more specific behavioural phenotypes of dogs

Chasing perception in domestic cats and dogs

Chasing motion is often used to study the perception of inanimate objects as animate. When chasing interaction and independent motions between two agents are displayed simultaneously on a screen, we expect observers to quickly perceive and recognise the chasing pattern (because of its familiarity) and turn their attention to the independent motion (novelty effect). In case of isosceles triangles as moving figures, dogs and humans both display this behaviour, but dogs initially preferred to look at the chasing pattern whereas humans started to increase their gaze towards the independent motion earlier. Here, we compared whether family cats perceive moving inanimate objects as animate and whether their looking behaviour is similar to that of small family dogs. We displayed a chasing and independent motion side by side on a screen in two consecutive trials and assessed subjects’ looking behaviour towards the motions. Similarly to previous studies, we found that dogs eventually looked longer at the independent motion, but cats preferred to look at the independent motion at the beginning of the video display and only later shifted their attention to the chasing motion. No difference was found in the frequency of gaze alternation of the two species. Thus, although cats discriminate between the chasing and independent motions, it is not clear whether this discrimination is controlled by animate motion cues. The difference may originate from their ecological situation and/or may be explained by specific perceptual mechanisms. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10071-022-01643-3

Test sensitivity is important for detecting variability in pointing comprehension in canines

Several articles have been recently published on dogs' (Canis familiaris) performance in two-way object choice experiments in which subjects had to find hidden food by utilizing human pointing. The interpretation of results has led to a vivid theoretical debate about the cognitive background of human gestural signal understanding in dogs, despite the fact that many important details of the testing method have not yet been standardized. We report three experiments that aim to reveal how some procedural differences influence adult companion dogs' performance in these tests. Utilizing a large sample in Experiment 1, we provide evidence that neither the keeping conditions (garden/house) nor the location of the testing (outdoor/indoor) affect a dogs' performance. In Experiment 2, we compare dogs' performance using three different types of pointing gestures. Dogs' performance varied between momentary distal and momentary cross-pointing but "low" and "high" performer dogs chose uniformly better than chance level if they responded to sustained pointing gestures with reinforcement (food reward and a clicking sound; "clicker pointing"). In Experiment 3, we show that single features of the aforementioned "clicker pointing" method can slightly improve dogs' success rate if they were added one by one to the momentary distal pointing method. These results provide evidence that although companion dogs show a robust performance at different testing locations regardless of their keeping conditions, the exact execution of the human gesture and additional reinforcement techniques have substantial effect on the outcomes. Consequently, researchers should standardize their methodology before engaging in debates on the comparative aspects of socio-cognitive skills because the procedures they utilize may differ in sensitivity for detecting differences