Obey or not obey? Dogs (canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners

Journal of Comparative Psychology

Volumn 120, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 169-175

  Schwab, Christine ^a,b   Huber, Ludwig ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b Konrad Lorenz Forschungsstelle   (Austria)

Author keywords

Attention; Canis familiaris; Communication; Dog human relationship; Social cognition

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COOPERATION; DOG; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; OBJECT RELATION; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; BONDING, HUMAN-PET; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; CUES; DOGS; HUMANS; MOTIVATION; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33747360123     PISSN: 07357036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.120.3.169     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Anderson, J. R., Sallaberry, P., & Barbier, H. (1995). Use of experimentergiven cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 49, 201-208.
2. Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Precursors to a theory of mind: Understanding attention in others. In A. Whiten (Eds.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 233-251). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
3. Baron-Cohen, S., & Swettenham, J. (1996). The relationship between SAM and ToMM: Two hypotheses. In P. Carruthers & P. K. Smith (Eds.), Theories of theories of mind (pp. 158-168). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Burger, J., & Gochfeld, M. (1993). The importance of the human face in risk perception by black iguanas, Ctenosaura similis. Journal of Herpetology, 27, 426-430.
5. Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., & Murray, B. G. (1991). Role of a predator's eye size in risk perception by basking black iguanas, Ctenosaura similis. Animal. Behaviour, 42, 471-476.
6. Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., & Murray, B. G. (1992). Risk discrimination of eye contact and directness of approach in black iguanas (Ctenosaura similis). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 106, 97-101.
7. Burghardt, G. M. (1991). Cognitive ethology and critical anthropomorphism: A snake with two heads and hog-nose snakes that play dead. In C. A. Ristau (Eds.), Cognitive ethology: The minds of other animals (pp. 53-90). imisdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Burghardt, G. M., & Greene, H. W. (1988). Predator simulation and duration of death feigning in neonate hognose snakes. Animal Behaviour, 36, 1842-1843.
9. Call, J., Agnetta, B., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Cues that chimpanzees do and do not use to find hidden objects. Animal Cognition, 3, 23-34.
10. Call, J., Bräuer, J., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 257-263.
11. Call, J., Hare, B. A., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task. Animal Cognition, 1, 89-99.
12. Gácsi, M., Miklosi, Á., Varga, O. Topál, J. & Csányi. V. (2004). Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human's attention.Animal Cognition, 7, 144-153.
13. Gallup, G. G., Nash, R. F., & Ellison, A. L. (1971). Tonic immobility as a reaction lo predation: Artificial eyes as a fear stimulus for chickens. Psychonomic Science, 23, 79-80.
14. Gómez, J.-C. (1991). Visual behaviour as a window for reading the mind of others in primates. In A. Whiten (Eds.), Natural theories of mind: Evolution, development and simulation of everyday mindreading (pp. 195-207). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
15. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 1634-1636.
16. Hare, B., Call. J., Agnetta, B. & Tomasello, M. (2000). Chimpanzees know what conspecifics do and do not see. Animal Behaviour, 59, 771-785.
17. Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evolution of Communication, 2, 137-159.
18. Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) usehuman and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113, 173-177.
19. Itakura, S., & Anderson, J. R. (1996). Learning to use experimenter-given cues during an object-choice task by a capuchin monkey. Current Psychological Cognition, 15, 103-112.
20. Kaminski, J., Riedel, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Domestic goats. Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social and in an object choice task. Animal Behaviour, 69, 11-18.
21. McKinley,.T., & Sambrook, T. D. (2000). Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition, 3, 13-22.
22. Miklósi, Á., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (1998). Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Animal Cognition, 1, 113-121.
23. Miklósi, Á., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2000). Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: An experimental analysis of "showing" behaviour in the dog. Animal Cognition, 3, 159-166.
24. Povinelli, D. J., Bierschwale, D. T., & Cech, C. G. (1999). Comprehension of seeing as a referential act in young children, but not juvenile chimpanzees. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 37-60.
25. Povinelli, D. J., Nelson, K. E., & Boysen, S. T. (1990). Inferences about guessing and knowing by chimpanzees. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 104, 203-210.
26. Rodd, Z. A. Rosellini, R. A., Stock, H. S., & Gallup, G. G. (1997). Learned helplessness in chickens (Gallus gallus): Evidence for attentional bias. Learning and Motivation, 28, 43-55.
27. Scérif, G., Gómez, J. -C., & Byrne, R. W. (2004). What do Diana monkeys know about the focus of attention of a conspecific? Animal Behaviour, 68, 1239-1247.
28. Shapiro, A. D., Janik, V. M., & Slater, P. J. B. (2003). A gray seal's (Halichoerus grypus) responses to experimenter-given pointing and directional cues. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 355-362.
29. Soproni, K., Miklósi, Á., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2001). Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 122-126.
30. Soproni, K., Miklósi, Á., Topál. J., & Csányi, V. (2002). Dogs' (Canis familiaris) responsive-ness to human pointing gestures. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 1-8.
31. Topál, J., Miklósi, Á. & Csányi, V. (1997). Dog-human relationship affects problem solving behavior in the dog. Anthrozoös, 10, 214-224.
32. Virány, Z., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á. & Csányi, V. (2004). Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans' attentional focus. Behavioural Processes, 66, 161-172.