Papers by Carolina Shimabukuro
Discrimination of and memory for others’ generous and selfish behaviors could be adaptive abiliti... more Discrimination of and memory for others’ generous and selfish behaviors could be adaptive abilities in social animals. Dogs have seemingly expressed such skills in both direct and indirect interactions with humans. However, recent studies suggest that their capacity may rely on cues other than people’s individual characteristics, such as the place where the person stands. Thus, the conditions under which dogs recognize individual humans when solving
cooperative tasks still remains unclear. With the aim of contributing to this problem, we made dogs interact with two human experimenters, one generous (pointed towards the
food, gave ostensive cues, and allowed the dog to eat it) and the other selfish (pointed towards the food, but ate it before the dog could have it). Then subjects could choose between
them (studies 1-3). In study 1, dogs took several training trials to learn the discrimination between the generous and the selfish experimenters when both were of the same gender. In
study 2, the discrimination was learned faster when the experimenters were of different gender as evidenced both by dogs’ latencies to approach the bowl in training trials as well as by their choices in preference tests. Nevertheless, dogs did not get confused by gender when the experimenters were changed in between the training and the choice phase in study 3. We conclude that dogs spontaneously used human gender as a cue to discriminate between more and less cooperative experimenters. They also relied on some other personal feature which let them avoid being confused by gender when demonstrators were changed. We discuss these results in terms of dogs’ ability to recognize individuals and the potential advantage of this skill for their lives in human environments.
Dogs are able to solve different problems by trial and error learning, but it seems that
they can... more Dogs are able to solve different problems by trial and error learning, but it seems that
they cannot understand the means-end connection. Some studies suggest that dogs'
performance is influenced by their breed and by the level of familiarity with the person
they interact with. In our study, we assess individual differences in both social and nonsocial
responses in a problem-solving task during the acquisition, extinction, and
reacquisition phases. In order to investigate the effect of familiarity, in the first
experiment, the human present during the task was either a familiar (the dog's owner) or
unfamiliar person. In the second experiment, we compared breeds (Retrievers and
Shepherds) that had previously shown differences in a communicative task. The results
revealed that all groups learned the task and became more efficient in the acquisition
trials. These non-social responses diminished during extinction, where an increase in
social responses was observed. With regard to individual differences, dogs were more
persistent in searching the reward during the second extinction trial when the owner was
present (in contrast with a stranger), and also looked longer at the unfamiliar person at the
beginning of the acquisition trial. On the other hand, Retrievers showed greater social
motivation during reacquisition and Shepherds picked up more bones during the third
acquisition trial, thus suggesting a more persisitent search of the reward. These findings
highlight the relevance of studying different learning schedules as well as individual
differences in problem-solving ability so as to improve selection and training techniques.
Discrimination of and memory for others’ generous and selfish behaviors could be adaptive abiliti... more Discrimination of and memory for others’ generous and selfish behaviors could be adaptive abilities in social animals. Dogs have seemingly expressed such skills in both direct and indirect interactions with humans. However, recent studies suggest that their capacity may rely on cues other than people’s individual characteristics, such as the place where the person stands. Thus, the conditions under which dogs recognize individual humans when solving cooperative tasks still remains unclear. With the aim of contributing to this problem, we made dogs interact with two human experimenters, one generous (pointed towards the food, gave ostensive cues, and allowed the dog to eat it) and the other selfish (pointed towards the food, but ate it before the dog could have it). Then subjects could choose between them (studies 1-3). In study 1, dogs took several training trials to learn the discrimination between the generous and the selfish experimenters when both were of the same gender. In study 2, the discrimination was learned faster when the experimenters were of different gender as evidenced both by dogs’ latencies to approach the bowl in training trials as well as by their choices in preference tests. Nevertheless, dogs did not get confused by gender when the experimenters were changed in between the training and the choice phase in study 3. We conclude that dogs spontaneously used human gender as a cue to discriminate between more and less cooperative experimenters. They also relied on some other personal feature which let them avoid being confused by gender when demonstrators were changed. We discuss these results in terms of dogs’ ability to recognize individuals and the potential advantage of this skill for their lives in human environments.
Uploads
Papers by Carolina Shimabukuro
cooperative tasks still remains unclear. With the aim of contributing to this problem, we made dogs interact with two human experimenters, one generous (pointed towards the
food, gave ostensive cues, and allowed the dog to eat it) and the other selfish (pointed towards the food, but ate it before the dog could have it). Then subjects could choose between
them (studies 1-3). In study 1, dogs took several training trials to learn the discrimination between the generous and the selfish experimenters when both were of the same gender. In
study 2, the discrimination was learned faster when the experimenters were of different gender as evidenced both by dogs’ latencies to approach the bowl in training trials as well as by their choices in preference tests. Nevertheless, dogs did not get confused by gender when the experimenters were changed in between the training and the choice phase in study 3. We conclude that dogs spontaneously used human gender as a cue to discriminate between more and less cooperative experimenters. They also relied on some other personal feature which let them avoid being confused by gender when demonstrators were changed. We discuss these results in terms of dogs’ ability to recognize individuals and the potential advantage of this skill for their lives in human environments.
they cannot understand the means-end connection. Some studies suggest that dogs'
performance is influenced by their breed and by the level of familiarity with the person
they interact with. In our study, we assess individual differences in both social and nonsocial
responses in a problem-solving task during the acquisition, extinction, and
reacquisition phases. In order to investigate the effect of familiarity, in the first
experiment, the human present during the task was either a familiar (the dog's owner) or
unfamiliar person. In the second experiment, we compared breeds (Retrievers and
Shepherds) that had previously shown differences in a communicative task. The results
revealed that all groups learned the task and became more efficient in the acquisition
trials. These non-social responses diminished during extinction, where an increase in
social responses was observed. With regard to individual differences, dogs were more
persistent in searching the reward during the second extinction trial when the owner was
present (in contrast with a stranger), and also looked longer at the unfamiliar person at the
beginning of the acquisition trial. On the other hand, Retrievers showed greater social
motivation during reacquisition and Shepherds picked up more bones during the third
acquisition trial, thus suggesting a more persisitent search of the reward. These findings
highlight the relevance of studying different learning schedules as well as individual
differences in problem-solving ability so as to improve selection and training techniques.
cooperative tasks still remains unclear. With the aim of contributing to this problem, we made dogs interact with two human experimenters, one generous (pointed towards the
food, gave ostensive cues, and allowed the dog to eat it) and the other selfish (pointed towards the food, but ate it before the dog could have it). Then subjects could choose between
them (studies 1-3). In study 1, dogs took several training trials to learn the discrimination between the generous and the selfish experimenters when both were of the same gender. In
study 2, the discrimination was learned faster when the experimenters were of different gender as evidenced both by dogs’ latencies to approach the bowl in training trials as well as by their choices in preference tests. Nevertheless, dogs did not get confused by gender when the experimenters were changed in between the training and the choice phase in study 3. We conclude that dogs spontaneously used human gender as a cue to discriminate between more and less cooperative experimenters. They also relied on some other personal feature which let them avoid being confused by gender when demonstrators were changed. We discuss these results in terms of dogs’ ability to recognize individuals and the potential advantage of this skill for their lives in human environments.
they cannot understand the means-end connection. Some studies suggest that dogs'
performance is influenced by their breed and by the level of familiarity with the person
they interact with. In our study, we assess individual differences in both social and nonsocial
responses in a problem-solving task during the acquisition, extinction, and
reacquisition phases. In order to investigate the effect of familiarity, in the first
experiment, the human present during the task was either a familiar (the dog's owner) or
unfamiliar person. In the second experiment, we compared breeds (Retrievers and
Shepherds) that had previously shown differences in a communicative task. The results
revealed that all groups learned the task and became more efficient in the acquisition
trials. These non-social responses diminished during extinction, where an increase in
social responses was observed. With regard to individual differences, dogs were more
persistent in searching the reward during the second extinction trial when the owner was
present (in contrast with a stranger), and also looked longer at the unfamiliar person at the
beginning of the acquisition trial. On the other hand, Retrievers showed greater social
motivation during reacquisition and Shepherds picked up more bones during the third
acquisition trial, thus suggesting a more persisitent search of the reward. These findings
highlight the relevance of studying different learning schedules as well as individual
differences in problem-solving ability so as to improve selection and training techniques.