Climate change: Time to eat Fido?

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102445/Climate_change_Time_to_eat_Fido

Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427313.200-cute-fluffy-and-horribly-greedy.html

Public release date: 11-Jun-2009

Contact: Ewa Kittel-Prejs
e.kittel-prejs@elsevier.com
44-778-631-3420
Elsevier

What really prompts the dog's 'guilty look'

Amsterdam, 11 June 2009 - What dog owner has not come home to a broken vase or other valuable items and a guilty-looking dog slouching around the house? By ingeniously setting up conditions where the owner was misinformed as to whether their dog had really committed an offense, Alexandra Horowitz, Assistant Professor from Barnard College in New York, uncovered the origins of the "guilty look" in dogs in the recently published "Canine Behaviour and Cognition" Special Issue of Elsevier's Behavioural Processes (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc).

Horowitz was able to show that the human tendency to attribute a "guilty look" to a dog was not due to whether the dog was indeed guilty. Instead, people see 'guilt' in a dog's body language when they believe the dog has done something it shouldn't have – even if the dog is in fact completely innocent of any offense.

During the study, owners were asked to leave the room after ordering their dogs not to eat a tasty treat. While the owner was away, Horowitz gave some of the dogs this forbidden treat before asking the owners back into the room. In some trials the owners were told that their dog had eaten the forbidden treat; in others, they were told their dog had behaved properly and left the treat alone. What the owners were told, however, often did not correlate with reality.

Whether the dogs' demeanor included elements of the "guilty look" had little to do with whether the dogs had actually eaten the forbidden treat or not. Dogs looked most "guilty" if they were admonished by their owners for eating the treat. In fact, dogs that had been obedient and had not eaten the treat, but were scolded by their (misinformed) owners, looked more "guilty" than those that had, in fact, eaten the treat. Thus the dog's guilty look is a response to the owner's behavior, and not necessarily indicative of any appreciation of its own misdeeds.

This study sheds new light on the natural human tendency to interpret animal behavior in human terms. Anthropomorphisms compare animal behavior to human behavior, and if there is some superficial similarity, then the animal behavior will be interpreted in the same terms as superficially similar human actions. This can include the attribution of higher-order emotions such as guilt or remorse to the animal.

The editor of the special issue, Clive D.L. Wynne of the Department of Psychology, University of Florida, explained, "this is a remarkably powerful demonstration of the need for careful experimental designs if we are to understand the human-dog relationship and not just reify our natural prejudices about animal behavior." He pointed out that dogs are the oldest domesticated species and have a uniquely intimate role in the lives of millions of people. Recent research on dogs has indicated more human-like forms of reasoning about what people know than has been demonstrated even in chimpanzees.

Notes to Editors:

The article is "Disambiguating the "guilty look": Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour" by Alexandra Horowitz. The article appears in Behavioural Processes, Volume 81, Issue 3, Pages 447-452. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.03.014

The Special issue is "Canine Behaviour and Cognition", edited by Clive D.L. Wynne, Volume 81, Issue 3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03766357

About Behavioural Processes

Behavioural Processes (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/behavproc) is dedicated to the publication of high-quality original research on animal behaviour from any theoretical perspective. It welcomes contributions that consider animal behaviour, from behavioural analytic, cognitive, ethological, ecological and evolutionary points of view. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and papers that integrate theory and methodology across disciplines are particularly welcome. The quality of research and focus on these aspects are the sole criteria for acceptance. Papers reporting solely on human behaviour may be considered for publication if they relate closely to non-human research within the journal's remit. Authors of papers reporting research on human subjects are invited to contact the editors for advice prior to submission, as they are for papers of all kinds.

How well does your LGD follow a pointing finger?

Public release date: 23-Jul-2009
Contact: Graeme Baldwin
graeme.baldwin@biomedcentral.com
44-203-192-2165
BioMed Central

Human-dog communication -- breed as important as species

Dog breeds selected to work in visual contact with humans, such as sheep dogs and gun dogs, are better able to comprehend a pointing gesture than those breeds that usually work without direct supervision. A series of tests, described in BioMed Central's open access journal Behavioral and Brain Functions, should caution researchers against making simple generalizations about the effects of domestication and on dog-wolf differences in the utilization of human visual signals.

Márta Gácsi, from Eötvös University, Hungary, worked with a team of researchers to examine the performance of different breeds of dogs in making sense of the human pointing gesture. Gácsi said, "It has been suggested that the study of the domestic dog might help to explain the evolution of human communicative skills, because the dog has been selected for living in a human environment and engaging in communicative interactions with humans for more than 10,000 years. However, this study is the first to reveal striking difference in the performance of breed groups selected for different characteristics."

The researchers found that gun dogs and sheep dogs were better than hunting hounds, earth dogs (dogs used for underground hunting), livestock guard dogs and sled dogs at following a pointing finger. They also out-performed mongrels. Moreover, breeds with short noses and centrally placed eyes were better at interpreting the gesture than those with long noses and widely spaced eyes, which can probably be connected to a more optimal retinal location of greatest visual acuity, that might help focus their attention. According to Gácsi, "Although these results may appear to be unsurprising, there is a common tendency to make assumptions about genetic explanations for differences in comprehension between 'dogs' and wolves. Our results show that researchers must be careful to control for animal breed when carrying out behavioral experiments."

1. Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs
Marta Gacsi, Paul McGreevy, Edina Kara and Adam Miklosi
Behavioral and Brain Functions (in press)

During embargo, article available here: http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/imedia/2144061183251775_article.pdf?random=46311
After the embargo, article available at journal website: http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/

Please name the journal in any story you write. If you are writing for the web, please link to the article. All articles are available free of charge, according to BioMed Central's open access policy.

Article citation and URL available on request at press@biomedcentral.com on the day of publication

2. Behavioral and Brain Functions is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that encompasses all aspects of neurobiology where the unifying theme is behavior or behavioral dysfunction. Behavioral and Brain Functions is aimed at the scientific community interested in behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, investigating the psychological, computational, and neuroscientific bases of normal and abnormal behavior including the mind. The interdisciplinary nature of the field covers developments in human and animal behavioral science, neuroscience, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, neurobiology, linguistics, computer science, and philosophy.

3. BioMed Central (http://www.biomedcentral.com/) is an STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) publisher which has pioneered the open access publishing model. All peer-reviewed research articles published by BioMed Central are made immediately and freely accessible online, and are licensed to allow redistribution and reuse. BioMed Central is part of Springer Science+Business Media, a leading global publisher in the STM sector.

Public release date: 4-Aug-2009
Contact: Joe Schwartz
bjs54@cornell.edu
607-254-6235
Cornell University

African village dogs are genetically much more diverse than modern breeds

African village dogs are not a mixture of modern breeds but have directly descended from an ancestral pool of indigenous dogs, according to a Cornell-led genetic analysis of hundreds of semi-feral African village dogs.

That means that village dogs from most African regions are genetically distinct from non-native breeds and mixed-breed dogs. They also are more genetically diverse because they have not been subjected to strict breeding, which artificially selects genes and narrows breeds' gene pools.

The study, published online Aug. 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sheds light on the poorly understood history of dog domestication. Future work may help explain the timing and locations of dog domestication and how dogs have adapted to the African environment, human settlements and dietary shifts.

"The genes of modern breeds all cluster together in one little group, but the African village dogs we sampled show much greater diversity genetically," said lead author Adam Boyko, a research associate in the lab of Carlos Bustamante, the paper's senior author and a professor of biological statistics and computational biology.

Field researchers from the University of California-Davis, who are part of the Cornell-based Village Dog Genetic Diversity Project, and others, including local veterinarians, sampled 318 village dogs from seven regions in Egypt, Uganda and Namibia.

They also looked at breed dogs, including those reputed to be from Africa, Puerto Rican dogs and mixed-breed dogs from the United States. Researchers and veterinarians also collected photos and information on weight, age, coat color and body measurements and sent blood samples for analysis to the Canine DNA Bank at the Baker Institute for Animal Health, part of Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine, which maintains a growing DNA archive of dogs worldwide.

Boyko, Bustamante and colleagues used a computer program to track genetic diversity in the samples. They found that the African village dogs are a mosaic of indigenous dogs descended from early migrants to Africa and non-native mixed-breed dogs. Such reputed African breeds as Pharaoh hounds and Rhodesian ridgebacks clustered with non-native dogs, suggesting they originated from outside of Africa.

A previous study of village dog genetics confirmed that domesticated dogs likely originated from Eurasian wolves some 15,000 to 40,000 years ago, and reported that East Asian village dogs had more genetic diversity than any others sampled for the study, suggesting that dogs were first domesticated in East Asia. But the African village dogs analyzed in this study revealed similar genetic diversity, which raises doubt on the claim that dogs were first domesticated in East Asia.

As the group continues to collect samples from worldwide locations, including the Americas, the researchers will explore where modern breeds originated and how much genetic diversity has been lost with the development of modern breeds.

The researchers are interested in working with dog owners and local veterinarians to get more DNA samples of dogs from remote corners of the world. For more information: <http://villagedogs.canmap.org/>.

Co-authors included Heidi Parker and Elaine Ostrander, geneticists at the National Human Genome Research Institute; Rory Todhunter, a professor of clinical sciences in Cornell's College of Veterinary Medicine; and Paul Jones, a genetics researcher at the Waltham Centre for Pet Nutrition in the United Kingdom, among others.

The study was funded by Cornell's Center for Vertebrate Genomics, Department of Clinical Sciences and Baker Institute of Animal Health; the National Institutes of Health; and the National Science Foundation.

cornell's, animal, institute, information, college

Public release date: 8-Aug-2009
Contact: Pam Willenz
pwillenz@apa.org
202-336-5707
American Psychological Association

Renowned canine researcher puts dogs' intelligence on par with 2-year-old human

Border collies are brightest

TORONTO – Although you wouldn't want one to balance your checkbook, dogs can count.

They can also understand more than 150 words and intentionally deceive other dogs and people to get treats, according to psychologist and leading canine researcher Stanley Coren, PhD, of the University of British Columbia. He spoke Saturday on the topic "How Dogs Think" at the American Psychological Association's 117th Annual Convention.

Coren, author of more than a half-dozen popular books on dogs and dog behavior, has reviewed numerous studies to conclude that dogs have the ability to solve complex problems and are more like humans and other higher primates than previously thought.

"We all want insight into how our furry companions think, and we want to understand the silly, quirky and apparently irrational behaviors [that] Lassie or Rover demonstrate," Coren said in an interview. "Their stunning flashes of brilliance and creativity are reminders that they may not be Einsteins but are sure closer to humans than we thought."

According to several behavioral measures, Coren says dogs' mental abilities are close to a human child age 2 to 2.5 years.

The intelligence of various types of dogs does differ and the dog's breed determines some of these differences, Coren says. "There are three types of dog intelligence: instinctive (what the dog is bred to do), adaptive (how well the dog learns from its environment to solve problems) and working and obedience (the equivalent of 'school learning')."

Data from 208 dog obedience judges from the United States and Canada showed the differences in working and obedience intelligence of dog breeds, according to Coren. "Border collies are number one; poodles are second, followed by German shepherds. Fourth on the list is golden retrievers; fifth, dobermans; sixth, Shetland sheepdogs; and finally, Labrador retrievers," said Coren.

As for language, the average dog can learn 165 words, including signals, and the "super dogs" (those in the top 20 percent of dog intelligence) can learn 250 words, Coren says. "The upper limit of dogs' ability to learn language is partly based on a study of a border collie named Rico who showed knowledge of 200 spoken words and demonstrated 'fast-track learning,' which scientists believed to be found only in humans and language learning apes," Coren said.

Dogs can also count up to four or five, said Coren. And they have a basic understanding of arithmetic and will notice errors in simple computations, such as 1+1=1 or 1+1=3.

Four studies he examined looked how dogs solve spatial problems by modeling human or other dogs' behavior using a barrier type problem. Through observation, Coren said, dogs can learn the location of valued items (treats), better routes in the environment (the fastest way to a favorite chair), how to operate mechanisms (such as latches and simple machines) and the meaning of words and symbolic concepts (sometimes by simply listening to people speak and watching their actions).

During play, dogs are capable of deliberately trying to deceive other dogs and people in order to get rewards, said Coren. "And they are nearly as successful in deceiving humans as humans are in deceiving dogs."

Invited Address: "How Dogs Think," Stanley Coren, PhD, University of British Columbia, Session: 3282, 2:00 – 2:50 PM, Saturday, Aug. 8, Metro Toronto Convention Centre, South Building – Level 800, Meeting Room 801A

For more information or an interview, contact Stanley Coren at 604-876-4658 or cell 778-869-5776 or by e-mail at scoren@psych.ubc.ca

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 150,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.