Canine Studies from the former Canine Cognition Lab
Spatial Learning in Domestic Dogs: A Pilot Study on Diverse Testing Trials
Introduction
Research has suggested that dogs are able to navigate a maze with food reinforcement, but have a low spatial memory capacity (e.g., MacPherson & Roberts, 2010). Specifically, dogs had lower performance when completing a Radial arm maze when compared other animals. According to Craig et al. (2012), their dogs completed the same task had higher performance due to fewer trials per day. There has been little research found on the effects of testing trial on spatial learning. Therefore, the current study expanded research by assessing diverse testing trials on spatial learning within dogs.
Method
Each dog was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control/mass (6 trials over 1 day), intermediate (3 trials over 2 days), or long (2 trials over 3 days); all dogs completed a total of 6 testing trials. Researchers hypothesized that dogs in the intermediate condition would have a higher performance than dogs in the control condition. Researchers also hypothesized that dogs in the long condition would have a higher performance than dogs in the intermediate condition. Higher performance was defined as more correct container approaches, less wrong container approaches, less re-approaches, and shorter latency to complete the task. Test stimuli consisted of six plastic food containers; three food containers were baited with a food reinforcer (dog treats). The food reinforcers were placed in the same container across condition and test trial. During the trial, the dog was allowed to freely roam the room for 10 minutes to find the baited containers. If not found within 10 minutes, the trial ended. Once a trial was complete, the owner would walk the dog on the pathway indicated by a map given to them by the researcher; this walk would take 10 minutes. After the walk, the procedure was repeated until all test trials were complete. Correct container approaches, wrong container approaches, re-approaches, total errors, and latency (in seconds) were recorded by both a video camera and by hand and served as main dependent measures.
Results
For latency, preliminary data showed a significant difference of testing trial. The first trial was significantly longer than all other trials. For total errors, preliminary data showed a significant difference of testing trial. The first, third, and fourth trial had significantly more total errors than the second, fifth, and sixth trial. There were no significant differences of condition or sex. There were no significant differences of trial, condition, or sex for measures correct container approaches, wrong container approaches, or re-approaches.
Discussion
While the preliminary results deviate from the findings in previous literature, they are obtained from a smaller sample than previous findings. The current findings may be due to the dog treats not being reinforcing; some dogs did not consume the dog treats. Additionally, it’s also possible that dogs learned the task rapidly, which may explain why the trials were not different from one another for the majority of the dependent measures. Future work should employ more difficult tasks.
Research has suggested that dogs are able to navigate a maze with food reinforcement, but have a low spatial memory capacity (e.g., MacPherson & Roberts, 2010). Specifically, dogs had lower performance when completing a Radial arm maze when compared other animals. According to Craig et al. (2012), their dogs completed the same task had higher performance due to fewer trials per day. There has been little research found on the effects of testing trial on spatial learning. Therefore, the current study expanded research by assessing diverse testing trials on spatial learning within dogs.
Method
Each dog was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control/mass (6 trials over 1 day), intermediate (3 trials over 2 days), or long (2 trials over 3 days); all dogs completed a total of 6 testing trials. Researchers hypothesized that dogs in the intermediate condition would have a higher performance than dogs in the control condition. Researchers also hypothesized that dogs in the long condition would have a higher performance than dogs in the intermediate condition. Higher performance was defined as more correct container approaches, less wrong container approaches, less re-approaches, and shorter latency to complete the task. Test stimuli consisted of six plastic food containers; three food containers were baited with a food reinforcer (dog treats). The food reinforcers were placed in the same container across condition and test trial. During the trial, the dog was allowed to freely roam the room for 10 minutes to find the baited containers. If not found within 10 minutes, the trial ended. Once a trial was complete, the owner would walk the dog on the pathway indicated by a map given to them by the researcher; this walk would take 10 minutes. After the walk, the procedure was repeated until all test trials were complete. Correct container approaches, wrong container approaches, re-approaches, total errors, and latency (in seconds) were recorded by both a video camera and by hand and served as main dependent measures.
Results
For latency, preliminary data showed a significant difference of testing trial. The first trial was significantly longer than all other trials. For total errors, preliminary data showed a significant difference of testing trial. The first, third, and fourth trial had significantly more total errors than the second, fifth, and sixth trial. There were no significant differences of condition or sex. There were no significant differences of trial, condition, or sex for measures correct container approaches, wrong container approaches, or re-approaches.
Discussion
While the preliminary results deviate from the findings in previous literature, they are obtained from a smaller sample than previous findings. The current findings may be due to the dog treats not being reinforcing; some dogs did not consume the dog treats. Additionally, it’s also possible that dogs learned the task rapidly, which may explain why the trials were not different from one another for the majority of the dependent measures. Future work should employ more difficult tasks.
Dog and Owner Personalities: A Correlational Study
Introduction
While previous literature suggests that personality dimesonions can be measured within canines (e.g., Gosling & Vazire, 2002), most research on personality falls within the human domain (Gosling, 2005). Additionally, there are few studies that interpret human demographics with canine demographics (e.g., Gosling, Kwan, & John, 2003; Kubinyi, Turcsán, & Miklósi, 2009) and even fewer studies that directly compare human personality to canine personality (e.g., Roy & Christenfield, 2004). Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to determine if there would be a correlation between an owner’s personality and their dog’s personality, in addition to the owner’s attachment to their dog, and further serve as a stepping-stone to better compare the two. The researchers hypothesized that there will be similarities in personalities based on how attached the owner is to their dog.
Method
Stephen F. Austin State University students served as the participants in the current study. Three questionnaires were given to the participants (Pet Attachment survey, Holcomb, Williams, & Richards, 1985; Big Five Inventory, John & Srivastava, 1999; Dog Personality Questionnaire, Jones, 2008) through Qualtrics; each questionnaire was modified to fit a 5-point Likert-Scale. The DPQ is used to assess personality in dogs, the Pet Attachment survey is used to determine how attached an owner is to their pet, and the BFI is used to assess personality in humans.
Results
Preliminary data revealed a significant positive correlation between owner personality and dog personality, a significant positive correlation between owner personality and dog attachment, and a significant positive correlation between dog personality and dog attachment.
Discussion
The current results showed significant relationships between owner personality, dog personality, and dog attachment. The findings are relevant because they may be able to better establish the relationship between human personality and dog personality; this concept needs to be further researched. The findings also help better define how attachment may be a useful tool in human and dog personality. Future research should look into attachment and personality between humans and other pet animals (e.g., pocket pets, cats, etc.).
References
Gosling, S. D., & Vazire, S. (2002). Are we barking up the right tree? Evaluating a comparative approach to personality. Journal of Research in Personality,36(6), 607-614.
Jones, A. C., & Gosling, S. D. (2005). Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): a review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 95(1), 1-53.
Gosling, S. D., Kwan, V. S., & John, O. P. (2003). A dog's got personality: a cross-species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 85(6), 1161.
Kubinyi, E., Turcsán, B., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Dog and owner demographic characteristics and dog personality trait associations. Behavioural Processes,81(3), 392-401.
Roy M.M.,, & Christenfeld N.J.S. (2004). Do dogs resemble their owners? Psychological Science, 15, 361–363
Holcomb, R., Williams, R. C., & Richards, P. S. (1985). The elements of attachment: Relationship maintenance and intimacy. Journal of the Delta Society.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 102-138.
Jones, A. C. (2008). Development and validation of a dog personality questionnaire. ProQuest.
Note
Thank you to the Center to Study Human Animal Relationships and Environments (CENSHARE) at University of Minnesota for allowing the use of the Pet Attachment Survey.
While previous literature suggests that personality dimesonions can be measured within canines (e.g., Gosling & Vazire, 2002), most research on personality falls within the human domain (Gosling, 2005). Additionally, there are few studies that interpret human demographics with canine demographics (e.g., Gosling, Kwan, & John, 2003; Kubinyi, Turcsán, & Miklósi, 2009) and even fewer studies that directly compare human personality to canine personality (e.g., Roy & Christenfield, 2004). Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to determine if there would be a correlation between an owner’s personality and their dog’s personality, in addition to the owner’s attachment to their dog, and further serve as a stepping-stone to better compare the two. The researchers hypothesized that there will be similarities in personalities based on how attached the owner is to their dog.
Method
Stephen F. Austin State University students served as the participants in the current study. Three questionnaires were given to the participants (Pet Attachment survey, Holcomb, Williams, & Richards, 1985; Big Five Inventory, John & Srivastava, 1999; Dog Personality Questionnaire, Jones, 2008) through Qualtrics; each questionnaire was modified to fit a 5-point Likert-Scale. The DPQ is used to assess personality in dogs, the Pet Attachment survey is used to determine how attached an owner is to their pet, and the BFI is used to assess personality in humans.
Results
Preliminary data revealed a significant positive correlation between owner personality and dog personality, a significant positive correlation between owner personality and dog attachment, and a significant positive correlation between dog personality and dog attachment.
Discussion
The current results showed significant relationships between owner personality, dog personality, and dog attachment. The findings are relevant because they may be able to better establish the relationship between human personality and dog personality; this concept needs to be further researched. The findings also help better define how attachment may be a useful tool in human and dog personality. Future research should look into attachment and personality between humans and other pet animals (e.g., pocket pets, cats, etc.).
References
Gosling, S. D., & Vazire, S. (2002). Are we barking up the right tree? Evaluating a comparative approach to personality. Journal of Research in Personality,36(6), 607-614.
Jones, A. C., & Gosling, S. D. (2005). Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): a review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 95(1), 1-53.
Gosling, S. D., Kwan, V. S., & John, O. P. (2003). A dog's got personality: a cross-species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 85(6), 1161.
Kubinyi, E., Turcsán, B., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Dog and owner demographic characteristics and dog personality trait associations. Behavioural Processes,81(3), 392-401.
Roy M.M.,, & Christenfeld N.J.S. (2004). Do dogs resemble their owners? Psychological Science, 15, 361–363
Holcomb, R., Williams, R. C., & Richards, P. S. (1985). The elements of attachment: Relationship maintenance and intimacy. Journal of the Delta Society.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 102-138.
Jones, A. C. (2008). Development and validation of a dog personality questionnaire. ProQuest.
Note
Thank you to the Center to Study Human Animal Relationships and Environments (CENSHARE) at University of Minnesota for allowing the use of the Pet Attachment Survey.
Past Studies
The Canine Cognition Lab studies animal cognition with a focus on rudimentary arithmetic ability in domestic dogs. The current study presents dogs with three simple subtraction trials (“3-1=2,” “3-1=1,” and “3-1=3”) in order to demonstrate possible numerical competency in domestic dogs.
Stimuli: Test stimuli will consist of seven bowls placed in a line 0.1 meters apart from one another. Three of the bowls will have slits cut into the bottom to allow Milk-Bone brand dog treats to stand unaided. The bowls will be placed behind a hinged hardwood screen. The food reward will be Pup-Peroni brand dog treats.
Procedure: The “expected” subtraction trial will be a test of 3-1=2 and follow the same pattern as the “expected” addition trial, but the test area will initially hold two treats. Once the screen is raised, the researcher will remove one treat from behind the screen in the dog’s view.
The “unexpected” subtraction trial will be a test of 3-1=1. It will follow the same pattern as the “expected” subtraction test, but the researcher will only appear to remove one treat; however, the researcher will replace the treat behind the screen, leaving two treats in the test area.
The second “unexpected” subtraction trial will be a test of 3-1=3 and follow the same pattern as the first “unexpected” subtraction trial; however, the researcher will appear to remove one treat while actually removing two treats without allowing the dog to see the second treat taken.
Each dog will be recorded using a video camera, and the amount of time spent looking at the test area will be determined by two independent coders to insure good notability of gaze.
Procedure: The “expected” subtraction trial will be a test of 3-1=2 and follow the same pattern as the “expected” addition trial, but the test area will initially hold two treats. Once the screen is raised, the researcher will remove one treat from behind the screen in the dog’s view.
The “unexpected” subtraction trial will be a test of 3-1=1. It will follow the same pattern as the “expected” subtraction test, but the researcher will only appear to remove one treat; however, the researcher will replace the treat behind the screen, leaving two treats in the test area.
The second “unexpected” subtraction trial will be a test of 3-1=3 and follow the same pattern as the first “unexpected” subtraction trial; however, the researcher will appear to remove one treat while actually removing two treats without allowing the dog to see the second treat taken.
Each dog will be recorded using a video camera, and the amount of time spent looking at the test area will be determined by two independent coders to insure good notability of gaze.