Human-Dog Psychology: 5 Weird Studies
[Photo by mcsixth]
Cat or dog? If I have to choose, I choose dog. It seems, if pushed, most academic research psychologists choose dog as well. I say that because there are quite a few studies about how we interact with dogs but hardly any (none?) about cats [UPDATE: actually there are studies on human-cat psychology]. Here are my five favourite studies on the psychology of human-dog interaction.
1. Is talking to a dog like talking to a baby?
Are these people talking to their babies or their dogs:
"Coochie-coochie-coooo!"
"Who's a clever little boy?"
"Oh my God, the living room carpet is ruined!"
Difficult to tell right? So Mitchell (2001) thought, which is why he decided to compare how people talk to infants with how they talk to dogs. He found both similarities and differences:
Similarities: high-pitched voice, repetitive use of grammatically acceptable words, present-tense verbs.
Differences: Dog-talk involved shorter sentences and more orders while baby-talk included more questions.
Which all raises the question of whether we're treating our babies like dogs or our dogs like babies. Either way, the authors point out the main problem in talking to both babies and dogs is it "involve[s] communicating with a limited and inattentive addressee."
I think that's a bit harsh on dogs.
2. Do we think dogs understand us?
What with all that baby-talk going on, you'd think that dogs would pick up the odd word or two. To examine people's perceptions of their dog's understanding Pongracz, Miklosi and Csanyi (2001) gave Hungarian dog-owners a questionnaire. It asked them to rate the types of utterances they thought their dogs could understand. Top of the list came questions, followed by permissions and information giving. It seems these dogs are regular little Lassies.
But what proof is there that they really understand? Well, we can only tell by how the dog responds. So, next the authors asked dog-owners how often their dogs demonstrated understanding by obeying a command. Our hardy Hungarian dog-owners reckoned:
- Dogs obeyed 31% of the time under all circumstances.
- Dogs obeyed 53% of the time when the context was right
Seems pretty high to me. Or perhaps Hungarian dogs are very smart.
3. Are dogs ice-breakers?
Even if dogs can't understand what we're saying they're still fantastic props for starting conversations. When taking a dog for a walk, you can't help getting chatting to people. OK, so you're mainly apologising to parents as your dog mauls their children, but at least its social contact, right?
The evidence for this one is provided by Rogers, Hart and Boltz (1993) in an observational study of elderly dog walkers. They found dog owners have more conversations in which, surprise surprise, they often talked about their dogs.
Not only that, but dog owners tended to report higher satisfaction with their emotional, social and physical states. So not only do dogs start conversations, they may also make you healthier.
4. Do dogs resemble their owners?
I recently covered a study finding that couples come to resemble each other facially over time. So what about dogs and their owners? There are a few studies on this - well actually there's three academic articles and just one study.
a. Roy and Christenfeld (2004) find that, yes, dogs do resemble their owners, but only if they're purebreds - that's the dogs now, not the owners. So, the old chestnut is true. Hooray!
b. Levine (2005), reanalysing the data collected in the first study, say no - there's problems with Roy and Christenfeld's (2004) study. This means we can't yet be sure purebred dogs resemble their owners. A new study is required. Booo.
c. The authors of the original study say yes their original study was correct (Roy & Christenfeld, 2005). Hooray! (I think?)
The world still awaits the conclusion...
5. Is it wrong to eat your dog?
Dog lovers: look away now. Cat lovers: sharpen your knives. Haidt, Koller & Dias (1993) wanted to find out how culture affects the way we moralise about different types of behaviours using fictional stories. One story participants were told goes like this:
"A family's dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog's body and cooked it and ate it for dinner."
Then they're asked if the dog-chomping family should be stopped. Turns out the answer you give depends on your culture and socioeconomic status. If you live in the US and you're well off you're likely to agree that eating your dog may be disgusting but seeing as it isn't harmful, shouldn't be stopped.
On the other hand, if you're a poor US citizen, or you live in Brazil, you're much more likely to moralise and think the dog-chompers should be stopped in their tracks.
Cat conclusions
As there's little research on cats for all you cat people, I've had to make some inductive leaps based on the research about dogs:
- Cat-talk and baby-talk is completely unrelated
- Cats can't understand us (mostly)
- Cats are not ice-breakers
- Cats and their owners may (or may not) resemble each other.
- Only eat your cat in a poor neighbourhood
Err, we might need a little more research on this...
UPDATE: I've since discovered that there is a small literature on the psychology of cats. Read on about whether cats improve our mood, become attached to us and have personalities.
» Read more weird psychology studies.
References
Haidt, J., Koller, S.H., & Dias, M.G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 613-28.
Levine, D.W. (2005). Do Dogs Resemble Their Owners?. A Reanalysis of Roy and Christenfeld (2004). Psychological Science, 16(1), 83-84.
Mitchell, R.W. (2001). Americans' Talk to Dogs: Similarities and Differences With Talk to Infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 183-210.
Pongracz, P., Miklosi, A., & Csanyi, V. (2001). Owner's beliefs on the ability of their pet dogs to understand human verbal communication: A case of social understanding. Cahiers de psychologie cognitive, 20(1-2), 87-107.
Rogers, J., Hart, L.A., & Boltz, R.P. (1993). The role of pet dogs in casual conversations of elderly adults. J Soc Psychol, 133(3), 265-77.
Roy, M.M., & Christenfeld, N.J.S. (2004). Research Report Do Dogs Resemble Their Owners? Psychological Science, 15(5), 361.
Roy, M.M., & Christenfeld, N.J. (2005). Dogs Still Do Resemble Their Owners. Psychological Science, 16(9), 743-744.
Labels: Weird Psychology
28 comments
That must be very intresting around various dogs to make a study .
Nonetheless,all which isn't my fovourite study.
I really want to know if male dog more popular than female dog ,because of "bitch"?
Haa!
What is more interestung is the fact that there is this lack of studies in cat's behaviour towards humans...
But where's the reference for the assertion that most academic research psychologists prefer dogs? :P The ones I know prefer cats!
Ellinoora,
could you please share some of the references of researches on cats?
thank you!
Thanks for a fun post. I wrote a funny response to your "research" about cats, but the blogger software ate it. So I'll just summarize by saying: I know people that baby-talk to cats. Think of that flat-faced cat in the Fancy Feast commercials. And, with my family, cats are conversational filler, like talking about the weather. Once "how the cats are doing" comes up, I know it's time to get my coat.
All, I'll be very interested if anyone can find any psychology research on cats. I had a look and didn't come across anything at all.
Will, bad bad blogger software! Apologies for that.
Also, I don't know how anyone can sustain a conversation about cats for that long - they don't do anything!
Oh dear, I'm revealing my prejudice again...
Hi there,
Interesting topic...well did little search on the web and came with this info...it's not completely related to this topic but some how it relates...
http://www.ciao.co.uk/Pet_Behavioural_Problems__Review_5477437
Not bad SHZ, but can anyone track down any actual studies?
The social contract thing is quite true, but I would make a little addition. I have long asserted to my husband and son that dogs are also chick magnets. My spotted rat terrier, Mike, may be the cutest thing alive, and many times when we are out on our daily walk around the campus of an area university my husband who walks quite fast gets way ahead of me with the dog. Lots of girls stop and coo at Mike, ask questions, etc. Single guys take note. Chicks dig cute dogs.
This is an awesome post! I love dogs. I have had hamsters, guinea pigs, fish, cats and dogs. I think dogs are more nearly like humans than any other pet...oh, unless you are like Michael Jackson and you own a chimp.
Having lived with both throughout my entire life:
No psych studies with cats because they refuse to sign the informed consent forms! Seriously though, cats are more often (purposefully) uncooperative, since they are not group animals. Dogs are focused on the alpha, and hence the human-canine interactions are more varied in observational situations.
As for #3, on my list for research projects is the examination of the manifestation and maintenance of social networks (and social capital) in dog parks.
Lastly, I wish I could remember where (and I'm too lazy at the moment), as I recall, I read an article studying the use of pets as mediators for tension in couples. Owners would speak to the animals to voice their relationship gripes loud enough for the partner to hear, but in such a manner that the partner would not be directly attacked.
Anon, definitely helps a lot that Mike is cute. If you had a Pit Bull or a Rottweiler the reaction might not be so good. Guys also take note of this!
OCD - glad you liked it.
Dr G. - it's true about consent forms. At least dogs will do a paw print for you. Cats? No chance.
You have to think about what a man' s choice of a small cute dog says to females about the guy. For instance a man with a small cute dog is conveying that he is not insecure about his masculinity and doesn't need his dog to sign machismo. He is also showing that he may have the subtlety to appreciate characteristics other than brute force, while a pit bull sort of screams the opposite. It even says something about socio-economic status; that he doesn't live in a part of town where an attack dog is regarded as being more important than door locks. It's worth noting that the girls in this case are not only attracted to the dog. When I am at the other end of the leash they don't pay attention. But put my husband or nineteen year old son there and the attraction is instant. Someone should do a study.
Anon., I hadn't thought of it that way although I'm curious about the 'secure with masculinity argument'. It would be interesting to see if most people really do make these inferences from seeing a man with a small cute dog. Or would a guy be better off with a more intermediate dog: manly but not dangerous - a Labrador perhaps?
I suspect that dogs play a similar social role to babies in that they are facilitators of social interraction. I've certainly noticed that random women talk to me far more often when I'm with my baby son than when I'm on my own or with my partner. Maybe there's a trust issue as in men with children or dogs are seen as more trustworthy ?
I think a lab still has a high friendliness quotient as compared to a pit bull. In the area where I live pit bulls are common and preferred by males of certain sort. They tend to be people who shouldn't own dogs at all, and definately not potentially dangerous ones. These dogs are pretty obviously aquired to enhance the owner's appearance of toughness. Okay, so I live in Texas, if that tells you anything.
Anyway, I think the perception of the female as to dog breeds may depend on where you are and what the local culture is like. I do think that the lab or similar has an sporty sort of appeal, but one thing women hate is when a big dog jumps up on thier new white shorts, and little dogs aren't so apt to do that. I think there are dogs that might detract from a guy's masculine image. One that takes a lot of grooming, for instance.
I think the baby thing is true, too. They are definately social ice breakers. And definately they increase the sense that a man is trustworthy. 'Hey, he's taking care of a baby (or dog). He's not a bad guy.' No doubt it's generally true.
What can be said about this? When humans behave like dogs, we call them loyal and trusting. When humans behave like cats, we call them scary psychopaths and try to have them locked up. Maybe it's because dogs have been domesticated longer than cats?
This is in response to Will,
I was laughing out loud...I am so sorry your 'funny' comment was eaten. cats and our family are the same, although we do have a dog in the mix too.
Thanks for a good laugh, I needed that.
@ Dr. Grumpus. You wrote that you've heard of a study where dogs are used as mediators for tension in couples. It would be great if you could find the reference because I could use this for an essay I am writing. I looked on the web myself but couldn't find it. Thanks!!!
I have always had a theory that men prefer dogs because they are easier to control and more predictable, and that people who have an antipathy for cats have a problem with the anima. I'm amazed there haven't been any studies to explore why people prefer dogs over cats.
I’ve trained many of my cats to do tricks, beg, shake, roll over and to walk on a leash. It’s very simple to do when there’s a bond and trust between you and the cat, speaking to them helps create that. Repetitive speaking causes them to acknowledge and respond to your voice,
And I’m sorry Dr. Grumpus but you’re flat out wrong there, while cats in the wild might not be group animals, your modern day house cat very much is a group creature. They are happiest in pairs and groups and whole family systems. With complex alpha systems along with it.
Dogs are definitely ice-breakers. No one approaches my intimidating husband when he is walking alone. When he walks our friendly, fluffy white dog however, women and children approach him and engage in conversation. His only complaint is they remember the dog's name and address but forget his name.
There are cultures in which a puppy is eaten as part of a ceremony. Other cultures simply regard them (and cats) as meat. So?
Cats have been domesticated for as long as dogs or longer. The difference is that in ancient Egypt, for example, and some other cultures, Cats were worshiped and dogs were servants. Cats view humans as their property and are much more demanding of us, where as dogs view larger animals as dominant and often aim to please. Dogs are almost always social animals, and sometimes function independently. Cats are usually independent but sometimes function socially, example: lions.
You can keep your "inductive" reasoning, clever though it may be. Cats are much more affectionate than dogs. Also, your cat won't eat you or kill your child.
cats CAN kill your kids.
there have been incidents where cats have laid on babies asleep in cots because of the warmth and smell of milk, causing asphyxiation.
also cats will eat you, they just wait til you're already dead...
I read that if a dog's owner dies, the dog will wait to feast on the body until it has no other choice but to do so - up to three weeks without food.
Cats? They will wait about three days.
Fun post. My dog keeps telling me I look like him, but I'm not buying it.
More seriously, I've always found it amusing that so many people assume that cats are smart because they appear "independent". Just from life experience I see next to no evidence that cats are anywhere near as intelligent as dogs. But I guess using the independence excuse makes people feel better about their less intelligent feline companions.