10.04.2013 Views

of the Dog - Association of Pet Dog Trainers

of the Dog - Association of Pet Dog Trainers

of the Dog - Association of Pet Dog Trainers

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Creative Canine:<br />

Original Intentional<br />

Canine-<br />

to-<br />

Human<br />

Communication<br />

This is <strong>the</strong> second part <strong>of</strong> a series on canine-to-human<br />

communication research. The first part “If A <strong>Dog</strong> Smiles”<br />

appeared in <strong>the</strong> May/June issue and provided an overview <strong>of</strong><br />

current research in canine communication.<br />

My<br />

M<br />

Sheltie Kayla adores tummy rubs. She rolls<br />

onto her back exposing her pink underside<br />

in solicitation and purrs like a cat when her<br />

humans comply. Often, we do not adequately satisfy her<br />

craving, so she invented a unique strategy to request extra<br />

massages: She puts both front paws toge<strong>the</strong>r and waves<br />

<strong>the</strong>m vigorously in <strong>the</strong> air, an action we immediately<br />

understood to say “more, please.”<br />

I never trained Kayla to <strong>of</strong>fer this “more” signal nor<br />

any similar gesture. She seemingly devised her “more”<br />

motion as a creative way to request a specific action from<br />

me. Soon, I realized Kayla expressed many desires with<br />

distinctive, usually non-vocal signals. On walks, she sat<br />

to emphasize a desire to head in a different direction than<br />

<strong>the</strong> one I intended. To solicit fetch, she glanced at me, <strong>the</strong>n<br />

her ball, while prancing on her front paws. A hard stare<br />

with a sit necessitated a potty break and a howl meant<br />

urgent.<br />

Canines and humans share closer bonds than perhaps<br />

any o<strong>the</strong>r species. <strong>Dog</strong>s live in a human world. Humans<br />

bred wild canines for both utility and affiliation, and<br />

we continue to fine-tune our dogs’ phenotype to our<br />

fancy. The human family became <strong>the</strong> dog’s pack, human<br />

society its environmental niche. 1 <strong>Dog</strong>s and human culture<br />

entwined and co-evolved. 2<br />

<strong>Dog</strong>s have been selected for adaptations to human<br />

social life, and <strong>the</strong>se adaptations have led to marked<br />

changes in <strong>the</strong>ir communicative, social, cooperative and<br />

attachment behaviours towards humans. 3<br />

Vilmos Csányi, author <strong>of</strong> If <strong>Dog</strong>s Could Talk 4 and<br />

ethologist at <strong>the</strong> Loránd Eőtvős University in Hungary,<br />

suggests that this joint culture allowed our canine<br />

www.APDT.com<br />

Audrey Schwartz Rivers, MS<br />

companions to acquire “a remarkable number <strong>of</strong> mental<br />

traits that closely resemble our own” which include<br />

“remarkable interspecies communications skills.” Csányi<br />

notes, “... <strong>the</strong>y can predict social events, <strong>the</strong>y provide and<br />

request information, obey rules <strong>of</strong> conduct, and are able<br />

to cooperate and imitate human actions ... This is not a<br />

little thing because <strong>the</strong>y must pay attention to <strong>the</strong> person’s<br />

actions, remember <strong>the</strong>m, and <strong>the</strong>n apply <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

own body ... No o<strong>the</strong>r animal could do this” 5<br />

Experiments by Csányi and his colleagues demonstrated<br />

that dogs developed a complex two-way communications<br />

system with humans: 6<br />

<strong>Dog</strong>s are sensitive to human gestural communication,<br />

and <strong>the</strong>y are able to use different types <strong>of</strong> human<br />

directional gestures (pointing, bowing, nodding, head<br />

turning, and glancing gestures) as cues. In addition, it<br />

was revealed that dogs are also capable <strong>of</strong> intentional,<br />

functionally referential communications with owners. 7<br />

Humans also understand dog vocalizations and even<br />

non-dog people can identify various emotional inflections<br />

in specific dog barks. In addition, dogs combine various<br />

actions particularly vocalizations, gestures and gaze, for<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir communications with humans. 8<br />

I suspected o<strong>the</strong>r dog people experienced similar<br />

interspecies communiqués from <strong>the</strong>ir canine companions.<br />

I wondered if dogs also created, non-trained behaviors to<br />

communicate specific intent to <strong>the</strong>ir humans and, if so,<br />

how <strong>the</strong>ir humans interpreted <strong>the</strong>se distinctive signals.<br />

So, armed with curiosity and naiveté, I decided to conduct<br />

a survey about creative and intentional canine-to-human<br />

communications.<br />

Methodology<br />

I posted my research survey questions on an Internet<br />

web site from January through March 2007. 9 Participants<br />

were recruited with announcements on 12 dog-related<br />

news groups and I encouraged <strong>the</strong>m to spread <strong>the</strong> word.<br />

The survey involved three sections. Two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sections<br />

asked multiple choice questions about general information<br />

about <strong>the</strong> dog and owner. The third section provided two<br />

open-ended questions for <strong>the</strong> respondent to elaborate<br />

on <strong>the</strong> creative communication behavior <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dog10 and<br />

what <strong>the</strong> person believed <strong>the</strong> dog’s message 11 to mean.<br />

(For a copy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey, you can e-mail <strong>the</strong> author at <strong>the</strong><br />

address provided at <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> this article.)<br />

I reviewed each behavior essay response and assigned<br />

each a behavior category. I did <strong>the</strong> same for <strong>the</strong> message<br />

essays assigning each a message category. I based <strong>the</strong>se<br />

categories on two ethograms—a fancy term for a list<br />

<strong>of</strong> categories and <strong>the</strong>ir definitions. Figure 1 shows <strong>the</strong><br />

behavior ethogram and Figure 2 <strong>the</strong> message ethogram. I<br />

counted each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> behavior and message categories, <strong>the</strong>n<br />

calculated <strong>the</strong> averages for each. 12 Those averages became<br />

<strong>the</strong> behavior average (Figure 3) and message average (Figure<br />

4) for comparative analysis. From <strong>the</strong> multiple choice<br />

answers, I came up with a list <strong>of</strong> variables for <strong>the</strong> dog and<br />

<strong>the</strong> human13 . I calculated <strong>the</strong> behavior [continued on next page]<br />

November/December 2008 w The APDT Chronicle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Dog</strong> w 25

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!