09/04/2021
The other day I was walking with Oswald and received a text. While I was reading it, Ozzy stopped walking and I walked right into him. He yelped and then quickly looked up at me to see if it was an accident or intentional.
He looked at the expression on my face and assured of my contrition, trotted off again happily without a care in the world â except of course for what he believes (wrongly) to be the threat of a growing squirrel menace.
Of course, I still apologized profusely for running into him and covered his little nose in kisses, but could Ozzy really tell it was an accident?
A new study says he can.
Researchers tested pet dogs who âvolunteeredâ to eat treats. (Not surprisingly, they had plenty of enthusiastic volunteers.) Each dog was given treats through an opening in a plastic partition and then subjected to three scenarios:
1. The researchers started to hand them a treat, but âaccidentallyâ dropped it;
2. The researchers tried to hand them a treat but âcouldnâtâ because the opening in the glass partition was closed and set the treat down; and,
3. The researchers started to hand them a treat, but âintentionallyâ changed their mind by pulling it back and setting it down.
In all three scenarios, the treat ended up on the floor in the same spot on the researcherâs side of the partition.
Could the dogs tell the difference between the accident (number 1)? The researcherâs desire to give them the treat but their inability to do so (number 2)? And the researcher intentionally deciding not to give them the treat (number 3)?
Yes.
When the dogs saw that the researcher wanted to give them the treat but dropped it, they quickly ran around the partition and ate the treat on their own.
When the dogs saw that the researcher wanted to give them the treat but couldnât because the partition was closed, they waited (presumably to see if the researcher would figure it out?), but when the treat was not forthcoming, ran around and ate the treat, too.
When the dogs saw that the researcher started to hand them the treat but then decided not to, they stopped wagging their tails. They also tried to be good boys/girls in order to get the researcher to change her mind by sitting or laying down.
âThus,â concluded the authors, âdogs were able to distinguish between the experimenterâs intentional and unintentional actions.â
Of course, the dogs ultimately went around and ate the treat anyway in the third scenario, too, but not until they first tried (and failed) to convince the researcher that giving them the treat was both necessary and proper because they were good boys/girls (by sitting or laying down). Were they supposed to just let a perfectly good treat go to waste sitting there on the floor?
No.
They may be good dogs but they arenât dumb. Researchers need to stop acting surprised that they aren't.
The study, âDogs distinguish human intentional and unintentional action,â is here: https://go.nature.com/3mXTZpK.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I've launched a new column on Substack. Please join me there: https://nathanwinograd.substack.com/.
