To

1
Sharon To
Lynda Haas
Writing 39C
31 July 2015
Feelers and Thinkers: A Literary Review of Canine Cognition and Emotion
Given the popular status of domesticated dogs as mans best friend, there have been
years of debate over whether or not dogs are capable of feeling and thinking, much less loving a
human being, essentially a question of canine intelligence and consciousness. The study of
canine science is fairly new, as evolutionary anthropologist Brian Hare infers is in part due to the
fact that until the mid- to late- 1900s scientists believed domesticated animals were artificial
products of human breeding (The Genius of Dogs 14), diverting researcher attention from dogs
to other species deemed more intriguing like the chimpanzee. In this review, I will be analyzing
studies held throughout the past several decades specifically aimed at discovering what dogs
are feeling or thinking, if they are at all, and how such emotions and thoughts affect or are
affected by the human-animal relationship we have developed with them.
I will begin by establishing the initial perception of canines and their intelligence as
determined by early comparative psychologists as well as the effect of these assertions on the
general public and the canine population. I will then discuss scientific studies held throughout
the 20th century focusing on various facets of dogs emotional and intellectual capabilities and
their methods of expression. Many of these studies transformed the way humans viewed dogs
and their mental capacities and redefined the human-animal relationship. More recent studies
from the late 20th to early 21st century provide even further insight into canine intelligence and
learning and its effect on our consideration of dogs as conscious intelligent creatures.
A common perception about dogs, and all animals, dating back to the seventeenth
century involves a denial of animal consciousness; this perception was advanced by
philosopher Rene Descartes claim that animals are automata that behave in purely

To 2
mechanistic terms and are therefore not truly conscious or intelligent (Wilson, Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy). John Bradshaw, director of the Anthrozoology Institute at the
University of Bristol and research scientist studying domestic cats and dogs for over 25 years,
explains in his book Dog Sense that philosophers of the past also attributed emotions to
consciousness, believing the brain controlled behavior directly, and emotions existed merely as
commentary. By this logic, it was concluded that dogs were incapable of emotions because they
lacked the degree of consciousness that humans have (152).
This notion of dogs as simple beings was further supported by studies on dog
intelligence. Brian Hare, evolutionary anthropologist at Duke University and founder of the Duke
Canine Cognition Center, proposes a two-criteria definition of intelligence in his book The
Genius of Dogs that is as follows:
1. A mental skill that is strong compared with others, either within your own species or in
closely related species.
2. The ability to spontaneously make inferences (7).
One of the first formal studies of canine intelligence, which follows the same definition as
Hares, was conducted in 1898 by comparative psychologist and pioneer investigator in human
and animal learning Edward Thorndike. By placing dogs into puzzle-boxes and re-placing them
after their successful escape, Thorndike observed how dogs figured out how to escape the box
and whether or not they could remember how it was done when the experiment was repeated.
With each succeeding session, the dogs were able to escape more quickly, but as Thorndike
reasoned, if they were capable of inference, they would be able to escape immediately after
their first success. Through this experiment, Thorndike concluded that dogs learned through
trial-and-error learning, a method of associative learning that required no insight and implied
that dogs had limited intelligence and were inferior to other species like chimpanzees and
humans (Chance, Thorndikes Puzzle Boxes 437-439). Studies like Thorndikes set the

To 3
precedence that dogs lacked the complex level of consciousness that humans had if one were
to claim they had consciousness at all.
However, in studies spanning the early 2000s, researchers Adam Miklosi, chair of the
Ethology department at Eotvos Lorand University and a leading expert on dog cognition and
behavior, and Brian Hare revealed dogs abilities to interpret human gestures, signifying the
possession of communicative skills (The Genius of Dogs 53). Through various experiments,
dogs are directed to specific areas with a simple pointing gesture from the experimenter.
Despite enacting different situations, such as
the accompaniment of other forms of visual
gesturing (eye movement, gazing, etc.) and
different styles of pointing, such as proximal
pointing, cross pointing, and asymmetric
Fig. 1. Miklosi, Adam. Frequently used pointing gestures

pointing (see Figure 1), dogs have responded

accordingly, following the pointing gesture regardless of where the experimenter stood, or how
he/she pointed to the desired location. This ability to understand human gestures implies that
dogs possess some degree of inference and, by extension, consciousness. Of course, dogs are
not the only species who are capable of understanding human body language as a means of
communication. Political scientist and TIME journalist Jeffrey Kluger refers to horses abilities to
understand body language in his article on animal communication Animals talk, even if we cant
understand them. In the early 20th century, a horse named Clever Hans was said to have to
ability to understand human commands and do arithmetic. In reality, Hans was reading his
owners change in posture to adjust his behavior accordingly, indicating a clear sensitivity to
human body language (75). The case of Clever Hans as well as various findings on other
species, such as Kanzi the bonobo (Kluger 6), indicates a high dependency on body language
as a form of communication across all animals. However, among the various species that were
tested for pointing comprehension, Miklosi indicates in his 2006 study that dogs were of those

To 4
that followed commands more efficiently while also noting that dogs were also one of the
species that had the most exposure to human gestures. Their enhanced sociocognitive abilities,
developed from extensive socialization with humans, provide them with communicative skills
that support higher learning capabilities (Miklosi 81-93). Results from Miklosis and Hares
experiments contributed to a new perception of dogs and an incipient appreciation for their
degree of consciousness and intelligence.
Aside from merely understanding
the body language of other species,
dogs also communicate through their
own forms of body language, though
their gestures often go unnoticed on our
part. Emotions that dogs may feel, such
as anger or fear along with other
possible emotions for which there are no
human parallels, are often conveyed
through varying mannerisms. In 1999,
zoologists and animal behaviorists Zana
Bahlig-Pieren and Dennis Turner
investigated the anthropomorphic
interpretations that humans have of
animal behavior. Dog owners and non-

Fig. 2. Dog body language and emotion infographic

Created with Venngage

owners were shown clips of dog behavior and were asked to associate their expressions with
emotions. The owners descriptions were more anthropomorphic than the non-owners because
their judgment was affected by their relationship with dogs and their tendency to project their
own feelings onto dogs, disregarding the dogs body language, which should have been a
clearer indication of how they were actually feeling (Bahlig-Pieren & Turner 205-210). In Figure

To 5
2, I have created an infographic that displays the body language of three typical emotions dogs
convey through their body language as well as additional information on each emotion. Rather
than considering how we would feel in given situations and assigning those emotions onto dogs,
it is important to look for the signs that indicate their emotions. Through these studies, dogs
have proven their ability to communicate through and understand body language. Further
research shows that dogs are capable of understanding spoken language as well.
In 2004, leading expert on dog cognition and founder of the Max Planck Institutes Dog
Cognition Study Center, Juliane Kaminski, published the results of her research that came to be
known as the Rico studies. This research gained traction in the canine science field because it
proved that dogs were able to learn words similarly to human infants, suggesting a more
intimate connection between the canine and human brain. A border collie named Rico was
instructed to fetch toys for the instructor, with the amount of toys and the varying labels for said
toys increasing with each session. Rico showed an ability to learn by exclusion, being able
decipher between known and unknown terms, and to draw connections between new words and
new items. His retention ability was also tested four weeks after exposure to the items, and he
was able to successfully retrieve the items in 3 out of 6 sessions, the same retention rate as a 3year-old toddler (Kaminski 1682-1683). Ricos ability to associate human words with physical
items is another indication of dogs communicative skills and their understanding of humans, as
well as their comprehensive and cognitive abilities; until the end of the 20th century, these
attributes were not previously acknowledged.
Based on this research that proves dogs skills when it comes to communicating, it
stands to reason that perhaps dogs are capable of different kinds of reasoning that does not
parallel that of human beings. One such way could be in their reliance on and heavy usage of
olfaction, a sense humans are not as responsive to. In 1994, Peter Hepper, psychology
professor and director of research in behavioral development and welfare at Queens University
Belfast, published his study of the practice of imprinting among puppies and their mothers using

To 6
olfaction. After separating a litter of puppies from their mother for several weeks, researchers
provided the mother with cloths containing the scent of her puppies as well as cloths with scents
of other puppies. The mother reacted with more interest in the scent of her own offspring, and
vice versa for the puppies when given cloths with scents from different mothers. Having done
the same experiment among littermates, scientists were able to conclude that dogs shared a
family odor that allowed for recognition of their kin. Their ability to recognize each other based
purely on scent indicates that dogs are able to convey information through odors that humans
are oblivious to, which suggests that dogs could possess a level of cognition that is unknown to
humans (Hepper 13).
Heppers experiments also found that dogs imprint on other animals as well, particularly
humans. The bond they are able to share with humans can be understood on a scientific and
hormonal level, and also leads to insight on their emotional and cognitive facilities. To test the
degree of attachment dogs feel with humans as compared to their attachment with their own
species on a hormonal level, scientists David Tuber (Ohio State University, Mansfield), Suzanne
Sanders (Ohio State University, Columbus), Michael Hennessy (Wright State University), and
Julia Miller (Ohio State University, Mansfield) conducted an experiment with eight mongrels
raised as littermate pairs with full socialization with humans from eight weeks to seven years of
age. They observed the behavior of one of the dogs while their littermate pair was taken away
and a human caretaker was present. The level of stress hormone cortisol in their blood did not
change and neither did their behavior as long as they were in their familiar kennel. However,
when the dogs were taken to an unfamiliar kennel as a pair, they showed agitation and their
levels of stress hormone went up by over 50 percent (Tuber et al. 105). With a caretaker
present, their stress was alleviated and their cortisol levels returned to normal. Researchers
also indicated that the dogs cortisol levels remained steady regardless of location so long as
their caretaker was nearby. These results illustrate the attachment that dogs form between

To 7
themselves and humans; they are sentient beings who draw connections and behave according
to those connections, even if it is in a way humans have yet to fully understand.
Researchers now attribute the powerful human attachment in domestic dogs to biology,
specifically to the hormone oxytocin. Johannes Odendaal, a pioneer of research on humananimal interaction, and Roy Meintjes, professor of veterinary science at the University of
Pretoria in South Africa, performed a study on friendly interactions between dogs and humans.
After taking initial blood samples and establishing the baseline value for blood pressure and
hormone levels, humans and dogs were able to interact with friendly social gestures for a
maximum of 30 minutes. As a result, blood pressure decreased in both humans and dogs, and
hormones such as endorphin, oxytocin, dopamine, and prolactin increased in both species.
Because oxytocin has been identified as the hormone that promotes intimate bonding, its
increase in both humans and dogs through interaction indicates that, just like humans, dogs are
capable of developing strong bonds, and are therefore capable of emotion (Odendaal &
Meintjes 298-300). It is through studies such as these that we are just starting to learn about
and appreciate the many attributes dogs possess. Though there is still much to discover, we
have made great strides in better understanding our canine companions and will continue to do
so within the growing field of canine science.
The last few decades of research in the areas of canine cognition and communication
have clearly disproved the view advanced by Descartes that animals do not think or feel. It is
now understood that because dogs have similar mammalian brain structure as well as hormonal
makeup to humans, they also are cognitive and emotional, even though they express it in
different ways. This idea that emotions play a part in our behavior counters past assumptions
that human-level consciousness was necessary to feel emotion. According to Bradshaw,
emotions are survival mechanisms and exist to indicate to us where we are in relation to where
we ought to be (153). By that logic, dogs are also capable of emotions, having needed them to
survive. However, their needs for survival differed from our own, meaning evolution is what

To 8
created the difference between human emotion and canine emotion. Similarly, canine
intelligence, and all animal intelligence for that matter, does not parallel human intelligence, not
necessarily because they are inferior, but because their evolutionary needs were and continue
to be different from our own.
To conclude, the current state of canine science and research into canine cognition and
emotion is nascent, but the amount of knowledge in this field continues to accumulate. It is
important to understand a dogs perspective to improve and enhance the human-animal
relationship we have developed with them. With a better understanding of dogs and their
emotional and mental capacity comes a responsibility and obligation to treat these creatures
accordingly. Our relationship with dogs has changed over the decades with the research that
has been done to shed light on their capabilities, and it may continue to evolve as we discover
more about them.

To 9
Works Cited
Bahlig-Pieren, Zana, and Dennis C. Turner. "Anthropomorphic Interpretations and Ethological
Descriptions of Dog and Cat Behavior by Lay People." Anthrozoos 12 (1999): 205-10.
Research Gate. Web. 15 July 2015.
Bradshaw, John. Dog Sense: How the New Science of Dog Behavior Can Make You a Better
Friend to Your Pet. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.
Chance, Paul. "Thorndike's Puzzle Boxes and the Origins of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior."Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 3.72 (1999): 433-40. Print.
Hare, Brian, and Vanessa Woods. The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter than You Think.
New York: Dutton, 2013. Print.
Hepper, Peter G. "Long-term Retention of Kinship Recognition Established during Infancy in the
Domestic Dog." Behavioural Processes 33.1-2 (1994): 3-14. Science Direct. Web. 12
July 2015.
Kaminski, Juliane, Josep Call, and Julia Fischer. "Word Learning in a Domestic Dog: Evidence
for "Fast Mapping"" Science 304 (2004): 1682-683. Web. 14 July 2015.
Kluger, Jeffrey. "Animals Talk, Even If We Can't Understand Them." TIME Aug. 2014: 71-78.
Web. 1 July 2015.
Miklosi, Adam, and Krisztina Soproni. "A Comparative Analysis of Animals' Understanding of the
Human Pointing Gesture." Animal Cognition 9.2 (2006): 81-93. Springer Link. Web. 10
July 2015.
Odendaal, Johannes, and Roy Meintjes. "Neurophysiological Correlates of Affiliative Behavior
Between Humans and Dogs." The Veterinary Journal 165.3 (2003): 296-301. Science
Direct. Web. 14 July 2015.
Tuber, David, Suzanne Sanders, Michael Hennessy, and Julia MIller. "Behavioral and

To 10
Glucocorticoid Responses of Adult Domestic Dogs (Canis Familiaris) to Companionship
and Social Separation."Journal of Comparative Psychology 110 (1996): 103-08.
Research Gate. Web. 12 July 2015.
Wilson, Scott D. "Animals and Ethics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 15
July 2015.