Droopy vs Smuckers. Which dog will emerge triumphant?

Last time I left you hanging.

I said that the research paper Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs was fabulously interesting, and then I stopped writing. Now, in two parts, why this paper rocks.

Part 1

Humans have not always allowed dogs to mate where they may, like in Lady and the Tramp over a bowl of spaghetti and meatballs. Instead, we all know that humans artificially bred dogs to perform certain tasks and thereby serve particular functions, like babysitting kids on Thursday night date night. 

As a result of this breeding process, notable groups of dogs emerge. Today’s experiment looks at three different groups:

Cooperative workers 

Dogs selected to work in a cooperative environment with humans. These dogs work in continuous visual contact with humans. Ex. Herding dogs, gun dogs, dogs who bring you your pipe and slippers and dogs who help you back the car out of the driveway. 

Independent workers 

Dogs selected to work, but with no human visual contact.

Ex. Hounds, livestock guarding dogs, sled dogs, dogs who work as spies and dogs who work the overnight shift at the chew toy factory.

While not explicitly selectively bred, the final group is also part of today’s study:

Mutts 

Dogs without pedigree papers and who do not appear to be purebred. Ex. Dogs in AP calculus, dogs who can’t back up, dogs who offer to the wash the dishes after dinner and the dog who negotiated a great deal on your new Pontiac Grand Am. (The joke here is that mutts can vary immensely in behavioral trends and proclivities).

You’ll notice that the first two groups were bred to work with humans in particular settings; the first, to work cooperatively and rely on continuous visual contact with humans; the second, to work independently sans human visual contact.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Regardless of how dogs were bred, most do not spend their lives performing the task they were selected for. The term, ‘companion animal’ nicely summarize the role of many dogs; their primary job is to be just that, a companion. 

While dachshunds are a member of the independent worker breed and would flush out burrow-dwelling animals and hunt small prey, the dachshunds I know are doing no such things. It’s winter and most of them are probably under someone’s sheets. If dogs are not performing the activities they were selected to perform, what happens? Does the principle, “if you don’t use it, you lose it” apply, such as how I feel when I haven’t played capoeira in a while?

The wonderful study I keep mentioning explored the affects of artificial selection. To do this, they set up the following experiment:

The gist of the experiment: An experimenter got a dog’s attention, pointed to a bucket* and if the dog followed the humans’ point to the correct bucket, the dog got a treat! If the dog went to the wrong bucket, no treat. FYI, the name of this set-up is a “two-way object choice” test.  

Drawing from: Adam Miklosi and Krisztina Soproni (2005). Comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Animal Cognition.

The experiment wanted to know - In this pointing test condition, do dogs who were specifically selected for visual cooperation with humans perform better than dogs not selected for visual cooperation with humans?

Examining this question is more fun with fictional subjects: 

Independent workers - Mop and Droopy

Let’s say you live with two members of the independent worker group, a Komondor** named Mop and and a Basset Hound named Droopy. Remember, independent workers were bred to work while visually separate from their human partners. Even so, Mop has never been exposed to independent work and his favorite pastime is keeping your feet warm. Droopy also shows no independent work ethic besides sleeping alone on the couch for much of the day. 

A Komondor and an onlooker.

Photo copyright the author

Cooperative worker - Smuckers

Your friend down the road lives with Smuckers, a golden retriever, and therefore a member of the cooperative worker group bred to work in continuous visual contact with humans. He very rarely follows verbal or visual commands, and specializes in eating shoes.

This dog is actually named Rugby and yes, he eats shoes.

Photo copyright the author

Mutt - Muppet

Your grandma lives with Muppet. Muppet showed up at her door in the country one day, and now they live together happily. Muppet spends most of the day stalking frogs and chasing cats.

This is actually Michel. He is great!

Photo copyright the author

Before the results, can’t forget study methods!

A total of 90 dogs participated, 30 dogs in each group (independent, cooperative and mutt). Dogs in each group had similar socialization to human families, similar housing conditions and similar training experiences. 

Dogs were pre-trained by the experimenter to take treats from both buckets, so they knew they could get treats from both buckets. During the actual test, dogs were exposed to 20 pointing trials, half to one bucket and half to the other, and the points to each bucket were randomized.

How do you think each of these dogs will fare in the “two-way object choice” test?

Do you think Smuckers will fare better than Mop, Droopy and Muppet because he is a member of the cooperative worker group and was selected to work in continuous visual contact with humans? 

Remember their daily habits - eating shoes, chasing cats, sleeping and keeping human feet warm. Regardless of their daily lives, do you think the manner in which they were selective bred will affect their performance in the present experiment.

Results

Before we get to the “winner” (because all dogs are winners!), Mop, Droopy, Smuckers and Muppet all followed the experimenter’s point to the correct bucket better than chance! Regardless of selective pressures, all dogs did a great job following the experimenter’s pointing gesture (‘great job’ is an uber-scientific term).

But Smuckers won! (and he thoroughly enjoyed his celebratory cake, thanks for asking!) The cooperative worker breed came out in front of the independent workers and the mutts. 

What this means!

The study authors suggest this is not so much a difference in the dog’s cognitive abilities per se, but instead reflects a genetic propensity for cooperative workers to be incredibly responsive to human visual cues. Also, cooperative workers may inhibit their own spontaneous behaviors, thereby relying on and benefiting from human social cues. Finally, dogs bred to work with visual information provided by humans might simply be more inclined to observe human gestures in the first place. 

Some of you might be thinking, “But Julie, this study just showed that dogs exhibited a trait they were bred to exhibit”. 


Fine. I get it. Not all of you have your socks knocked off. I shared this study because (a) what would have happened if the results were different, (b) this is a group level phenomena and it’s nice to know about group behavior and (c) studies that confirm what we think are great! But it’s always important to test our assumptions! 

If you were ho hum about the results of Part 1, Part 2 will definitely knock your socks off! We’ll be comparing bug-eyed pugster and Goldilocks. Stay tuned!

**** section

*In the land of canine science research, the pointing gesture has received a lot of attention. The point in this study is called (drum roll please) ‘The Momentary Distal Point’. This is a cryptic way of saying, a human holds both their hands at their chest, one arm is stretched out away from the body with the index finger outstretched; the arm and finger are extended for less than a second, and then the hand is placed back on the chest. There you have it! The momentary distal point!

** Wikipedia says, “Hungarian Komondor breeders used to say that an intruder may be allowed to enter the property guarded by a Komondor, but he will not be allowed to come out again”.

References
Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs
Comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture