4.5 Article

What's the point? Domestic dogs' sensitivity to the accuracy of human informants

Journal

ANIMAL COGNITION
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 281-297

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10071-021-01493-5

Keywords

Social Learning; Canine cognition; Social cognition; Comparative cognition

Funding

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [05552]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that dogs can to some extent use the past accuracy of human social informants to make decisions, showing relatively high intelligence; and when faced with accurate and inaccurate informants, dogs have different behavioral responses.
Dogs excel at understanding human social-communicative gestures like points and can distinguish between human informants who vary in characteristics such as knowledge or familiarity. This study explores if dogs, like human children, can use human social informants' past accuracy when deciding whom to trust. Experiment 1 tested whether dogs would behave differently in the presence of an accurate (vs. inaccurate) informant. Dogs followed an accurate informant's point significantly above chance. Further, when presented with an inaccurate point, dogs were more likely to ignore it and choose the correct location. Experiment 2 tested whether dogs could use informant past accuracy to selectively follow the point of the previously accurate informant. In test trials when informants simultaneously pointed at different locations (only one of which contained a treat), dogs chose the accurate informant at chance levels. Experiment 3 controlled for non-social task demands (e.g. understanding of hidden baiting and occlusion events) that may have influenced Experiment 2 performance. In test trials, dogs chose to follow the accurate (vs. inaccurate) informant. This suggests that like children, dogs may be able to use informants' past accuracy when choosing between information sources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available