Transcript
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.