Skip to content
Skip to main content
header search
ahihi OpenLearn
OpenLearn
Menu
sticky search

About this free course

Become an OU student

Download this course

Share this free course

Course content Course content
Living psychology: animal minds
Living psychology: animal minds

Start this free course now. Just create an account and sign in. Enrol and complete the course for a free statement of participation or digital badge if available.

More free courses

7.3 Behind the scenes of the Dog Cognition Centre

You are nearly at the end of this course about animal minds. In this final section you will explore some research that at has looked at whether domestic dogs show evidence of having a Theory of Mind (ToM), and you’ll then consider the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used in this specific research, as well as laboratory-based and naturalistic studies more generally.

In this video, Juliane Kaminski talks about the research she has been carrying out on dog cognition at Portsmouth University. This research has offered insights into whether dogs understand ‘seeing’ as a mental state.

Research with domestic dogs is of interest to psychologists because, unlike primates such as chimpanzees (and some non-primates, such as elephants), dogs have a long history of living alongside humans. For them, interacting with humans can reasonably be considered to be a part of their natural environment.

Watch the video and then have a go at answering the questions in Activity 14.

Download this video clip.Video player: The Dog Cognition Centre
Copy this transcript to the clipboard
Print this transcript
Show transcript|Hide transcript

Transcript: The Dog Cognition Centre

NARRATOR
At the University of Portsmouth, Dr Juliane Kaminski is seeking to understand how human cognition has evolved. She’s going about it in a special way, by investigating cognition in animals.
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
No, Roxy. No.
When we are interested in the evolution of humans, one important work is to look at other species. There’s something about humans that is different to animals. We are understanding things in a different way, probably more flexibly, than other species.
But to actually find out what it is about human cognition that’s different, we need to compare the different species to actually see where the differences are. One thing that we think is unique to humans is that we have what we call a theory of mind. Theory of mind is our ability to make inferences about other people’s intentions, knowledge, desires, beliefs. Children have this understanding from an early age on. But we do not know whether animals can do the same thing.
NARRATOR
An obvious model for comparative cognition study has been our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. But Dr Kaminski has turned to another species very close to us -- our best friends, dogs.
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
Dogs are the first species we domesticated. We have been living with dogs around 20,000 to 30,000 years. And the hypothesis is that maybe because dogs evolved for the human environment, they might have evolved specialised cognitive skills as an adaptation to life with us.
We do see social cognitive skills in dogs that we do not see in any other animal. One example is how good they are in reading our communication, how sensitive they are in following our communication. We don’t see that in any other animal.
We also know that this is not just learned, because we’re teaching them to do this. We see this already in puppies that are not even with humans yet. Now, the idea is, OK, so if dogs are so good in this domain, it could be that they might be very good in other social cognitive domains as well.
Theory of mind is another one that people have looked at. So if dogs understand human communication, does it mean that they make inferences about what humans want or don’t want, desires, et cetera?
NARRATOR
In order to look into this more, Juliane has created the Dog Cognition Centre. One of its studies aims to find out whether or not dogs are sensitive to human attention.
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
No.
NARRATOR
The study is based on a simple observation that many dog owners have made. When no one is looking, dogs steal food.
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
We wanted to see if this is actually really true, and we can establish that as a fact in a lab. So we basically took this observation and turned it into a study. And so what we did is basically just put down a piece of food on the floor, tell the dog not to take it.
No!
And then the attentional state of the human varied. So sometimes she’s very attentive and looking at the dog, and the food. Sometimes her eyes are closed. Sometimes her back is turned, for example.
And what we found is that the dogs attend to human attention. So they steal the food less when the eyes are open, so when the human is actually really attentive. And they steal the food more when the human is not so attentive. So we know that dogs are extremely sensitive to the human eyes.
If we compare that to chimpanzees, for example – so chimpanzees in a very similar study were sensitive to the attentional state of the human. However, this very subtle difference of eyes open, eyes closed, did not make a difference for them.
NARRATOR
If conducted in a way to assure validity of data, these kinds of studies in a lab environment, rather than observations in the field, have many advantages.
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
The lab, of course, has the advantage of being more controlled. So I can actually take observations that people have made in the field. And I can take them to the lab, and control certain variables, and really see which variable has an effect, something which we would love to do in the wild, but we just can’t. It’s sometimes just not possible, because the environment is just not controllable to that extent.
When we are running a study with animals, we treat the study as if it were a study with human participants. In terms of validity of the data and everything, we always try and have as many participants as possible. We make sure that when we have different conditions, every dog receives the conditions in a different order to make sure we are not just looking at what we call order effects. We make sure that we, in the end, only have the variable we are actually interested in changing things.
NARRATOR
But this kind of lab research with animals has its challenges, too.
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
One question is always whether or not anything that comes from the lab has ecological validity. So can you really assume that what the dog, or any other animal, is doing in this very controlled setting is at all comparable to what it would do in the wild, or in the field.
Well, with the dogs, we believe that the setting that we are creating here is actually very, very similar to their field, basically. They’re in this kind of enclosed environment all the time with their owner. So for them, this is their natural surroundings to some extent.
I think the major challenge when you’re working with animals is that they can’t talk. So you can’t ask them any questions. When you’re looking at their behaviour, you’re looking at their choices in certain situations. You have to make an inference.
Of course, we are always risking that we are interpreting something in the wrong way. It also means that you have to be very creative. So you have to come up with situations which are as natural as possible to the animal, but still will help you to answer your question.
NARRATOR
And what can the answers to these questions tell us about perception and awareness in dogs? And the possibility that they may have theory of mind?
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
When it comes to theory of mind, so what we think we know so far is that dogs have kind of an innate sensitivity to certain cues, like the eyes, the voice, the tone of the voice. We call them ostensive cues. These are cues that humans are using when they’re interacting, when they’re communicating.
We also know that dogs seem to understand something about the other individual’s perspective. So it’s not just that they react to the eyes as a stimulus. They seem to actually understand something about the human’s perspective at that moment.
I would not call that a theory of mind. Because a theory of mind goes beyond that. It’s like really looking at the world from the other one’s angle. We are not sure dogs can really do that.
NARRATOR
And before we can confirm whether or not theory of mind is found in any other animal species, much more research needs to be done.
DR JULIANE KAMINSKI
There’s no evidence, as of yet, that any animal species understands anything about false beliefs. When I’m able to say that not only is your belief different from mine, it’s also false, that means I can really separate you from my knowledge. And also acknowledge that your belief is against reality at the moment.
And people see that as a major milestone in human development. That’s why people are looking for this ability in animals. We have some data now from chimpanzees. We have a little bit of data coming in from dogs. But that’s basically it.
So we just do not have enough data. So we need to look at other species. We need to make the picture compete.
End transcript: The Dog Cognition Centre
Download
The Dog Cognition Centre
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Activity 14 Social cognition in dogs

Timing: Allow 20 minutes for this activity

1. Why is the study of cognition in animals relevant to understanding the evolution of human cognition?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Answer

In the video, Kaminski points out that, in order to better understand the evolution of cognition in humans, it is useful to compare human cognition with cognition in non-human species in order to see where the differences are.

2. According to this video, what is special about dogs in particular, compared with other species?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Answer

Dogs were the first species that humans domesticated, around 20 or 30 thousand years ago; they may therefore have evolved specialised cognitive skills as they adapted to life with humans.

3. What is a disadvantage of naturalistic studies that observe behaviour in the wild?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Answer

It is often not possible to control the different factors in the wild in order to determine which variables may be having a particular effect.

4. What are the strategies used by researchers at the Dog Cognition Centre to try to make their data as valid as possible?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Answer

Three strategies are used:

  • As many dogs as possible are used in the studies.
  • Different experimental conditions are presented to dogs in different orders, which is called counterbalancing. This allows the researcher to rule out the influence of order effects, whereby the order of presentation of conditions has an influence on the results (e.g. dogs may always perform differently in the condition presented first, whichever it is; so if, for each dog, a different condition is presented first, this effectively cancels out any such effects across the range of dogs used in the study).
  • Measures (such as counterbalancing and controlling all other variables) are taken to ensure that only the variable(s) of interest can affect the dependent variable (DV).

5. What does Kaminski say about ecological validity in relation to studies with dogs?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Answer

Ecological validity might be less of an issue in controlled laboratory studies with domestic dogs, compared with other animals, since domestic dogs’ natural environment is very similar to the laboratory setting (being in a confined space with a human/their owner).

6. Does the evidence in this video suggest that dogs have a ToM?

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.
Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Answer

Kaminski says that, although dogs seem to have some level of understanding of the other’s (human’s) perspective, there is currently no evidence to suggest that they have the level of understanding necessary to constitute having a ToM.