Animal Cognition

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1129–1139 | Cite as

The effects of human attentional state on canine gazing behaviour: a comparison of free-ranging, shelter, and pet dogs

  • Lauren BrubakerEmail author
  • Debottam Bhattacharjee
  • Prayas Ghaste
  • Daisy Babu
  • Piuli Shit
  • Anindita BhadraEmail author
  • Monique A. R. Udell
Original Paper


The ability of animals to communicate using gaze is a rich area of research. How domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) use and respond to the gaze of humans is an area of particular interest. This study examined how three groups of domestic dogs from different populations (free-ranging dogs, pet dogs, and shelter dogs) responded to a human during three attentional state conditions: when the human was making eye contact (attentive), when the human was turned away (inattentive), and when the human exited the testing area. We found that dogs from different populations differed in their gazing behaviour. Free-ranging dogs responded to the human’s change in attentional state by looking significantly less at the human in the inattentive condition compared to the attentive condition. Pet and shelter dogs did not differ in their gazing behaviour between these conditions. However, they gazed significantly more at the human in both the inattentive and attentive conditions compared to the free-ranging dogs and also spent more time in the proximity of the experimenter. This study suggests that life experience plays an important role in how dogs respond to the attentional state of a human.


Attentional state Gazing Free-ranging dogs Shelter dogs Pet dogs Domestic dogs 



We would like to thank the dog owners and Heartland Humane Society for participating in this study. We would also like to thank Lea Hudson, Ana Medina Roman, Susu Peng, and Alexa Myers for assisting with data collection. We give special thanks to the Oregon State University Graduate School and Animal Science Department, and the Department of Science and Technology at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Kolkata for supporting this research.

Author contributions

Lauren Brubaker and Debottam Bhattacharjee designed the study; Lauren Brubaker, Prayas Ghaste, Piuli Shit, and Daisy Babu carried out the experiment. Lauren Brubaker and Debottam Bhattacharjee performed the analyses, drafted the manuscript and are the co-first authors on this manuscript. Anindita Bhadra and Monique Udell critically assisted with study design and helped draft the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for publication and agree to be held accountable for the work performed therein.


  1. Barrera G, Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2010) Responses of shelter and pet dogs to an unknown human. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res 5(6):339–344. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrera G, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2011) Communication between domestic dogs and humans: effects of shelter housing upon the gaze to the human. Anim Cogn 14(5):727–734. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentosela M, Barrera G, Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca AE (2008) Effect of reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Behav Proc 78(3):464–469. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentosela M, Wynne CDL, D’Orazio M, Elgier A, Udell MAR (2016) Sociability and gazing toward humans in dogs and wolves: simple behaviors with broad implications. J Exp Anal Behav 105(1):68–75. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhadra A, Bhattacharjee D, Paul M, Singh A, Gade PR, Shrestha P, Bhadra A (2015) The meat of the matter: a rule of thumb for scavenging dogs? Ethol Ecol and Evol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhattacharjee D, Dasgupta S, Biswas A, Deheria J, Gupta S, Nikhil Dev N, Bhadra A (2017a) Practice makes perfect: familiarity of task determines success in solvable tasks for free-ranging dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 20(4):771–776. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharjee DN, Gupta S, Sau S, Sarkar R, Biswas A, Bhadra A (2017b) Free-ranging dogs show age related plasticity in their ability to follow human pointing. PLoS One 12(7):e0180643. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharjee D, Sau S, Bhadra A (2018) Free-ranging dogs understand human intentions and adjust their behavioral responses accordingly. Front Ecol Evol 6:232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brainard MS, Fitch WT (2014) Editorial overview: Communication and language: animal communication and human language. Curr Opin Neurobiol 28:5–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brubaker L, Dasgupta S, Bhattacharjee D, Bhadra A, Udell MAR (2017) Differences in problem-solving between canid populations: do domestication and lifetime experience affect persistence? Anim Cogn 20(4):717–723. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Call J, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2003) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol 117(3):257–263. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Coppinger R, Coppinger L (2001) Dogs: a startling new understanding of canine origin, behavior and evolution. SCRIBNERGoogle Scholar
  13. Gácsi M, Topál J, Miklósi Á, Dóka A, Csányi V (2001) Attachment behavior of adult dogs (Canis familiaris) living at rescue centers: forming new bonds. J Comp Psychol 115(4):423. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7(3):144–153. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Gácsi M, McGreevy P, Kara E, Miklósi Á (2009) Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs. Behav Brain Funct 5(1):31. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Helton WS, Helton ND (2010) Physical size matters in the domestic dog’s (Canis lupus familiaris) ability to use human pointing cues. Behav Proc 85(1):77–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes J, Macdonald DW (2013) A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biol Cons 157:341–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2010) Breed differences in dogs’ (Canis familiaris) gaze to the human face. Behav Proc 84(2):602–607. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jakovcevic A, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2012) Do more sociable dogs gaze longer to the human face than less sociable ones? Behav Proc 90(2):217–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaminski J, Tomasello M, Call J, Bräuer J (2009) Domestic dogs are sensitive to a human’s perspective. Behaviour 146(7):979–998. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaminski J, Pitsch A, Tomasello M (2013) Dogs steal in the dark. Anim Cogn 16(3):385–394. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kleinke C (1986) Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychol Bull 100(1):78–100. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1(2):113–121. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Miklósi A, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3(3):159–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, Csányi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13(9):763–766. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ohkita M, Nagasawa M, Kazutaka M, Kikusui T (2016) Owners’ direct gazes increase dogs’ attention-getting behaviors. Behav Proc 125:96–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paul M, Sen Majumder S, Sau S, Nandi AK, Bhadra A (2016) High early life mortality in free-ranging dogs is largely influenced by humans. Sci Rep 6(19641):19641. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P (2007) Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Anim Cogn 11(1):167–174. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwab C, Huber L (2006) Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners. J Comp Psychol. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sen Majumder S, Bhadra A, Ghosh A, Mitra S, Bhattacharjee D, Chatterjee J, Bhadra A (2014) To be or not to be social: foraging associations of free-ranging dogs in an urban ecosystem. Acta Ethol 17(1):1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Udell MAR (2015) When dogs look back: inhibition of independent problem-solving behaviour in domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) compared with wolves (Canis lupus). Biol Let 11(9):20150489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2008) A review of domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. J Exp Anal Behav 89(2):247–261. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2011a) Reevaluating canine perspective-taking behavior. Learn Behav 39(4):318–323. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Udell MAR, Wynne CDL (2011b) Reevaluating canine perspective-taking behavior. Learn Behav 39(4):318–323. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2010) The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Anim Behav 79(3):717–725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2011) Can your dog read your mind? Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking. Learn Behav 39(4):289–302. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav Proc 66(2):161–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. von Bayern AMP, Emery NJ (2009) Jackdaws respond to human attentional states and communicative cues in different contexts. Curr Biol 19(7):602–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. vonHoldt BM, Shuldiner E, Koch IJ, Kartzinel RY, Hogan A, Brubaker L, Udell MAR (2017) Structural variants in genes associated with human Williams–Beuren syndrome underlie stereotypical hypersociability in domestic dogs. Sci Adv 3(7):e1700398. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Yorzinski JL, Penkunas MJ, Platt ML, Coss RG (2014) Dangerous animals capture and maintain attention in humans. Evol Psychol 12(3):147470491401200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal and Rangeland SciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Behaviour and Ecology Lab, Department of Biological SciencesIndian Institute of Science Education and Research KolkataMohanpurIndia
  3. 3.Indian Institute of Science Education and Research PunePuneIndia

Personalised recommendations