Modeling Evolutionary Changes in Information Transfer
Effects of Domestication on the Vocal Communication of Dogs (Canis familiaris)
Abstract
Abstract. Interspecific communication provides good opportunity for studying signal evolution. In this theoretical paper, we hypothesized that vocal signaling in dogs may show specific changes that made it more suitable for interspecific communication in the anthropogenic niche. We assumed that (1) some dog vocalizations will diverge from the corresponding exemplars of wolves; (2) they provide comprehendible affective, indexical, and contextual information for humans; (3) some aspects of dog vocalizations are more typical for the interspecific than for the intraspecific domain. We found that the most unique type of vocalization in the dog is barking. We proved that human listeners can contextually categorize dog barks, as well as attribute distinct inner states of dogs based on the barks. We found that dogs are sensitive to both contextual and individual-specific features of other dogs’ barks. However, dogs showed almost no response to the bark emitted in isolation, which is one of the easiest to recognize by humans, indicating the possibility of a specific, new communicative role for barks, not present in its original function. Our conclusion is that the qualitative and quantitative proliferation of barks can be explained by mechanisms of evolution such as ritualization and adaptive radiation. Barks became suitable for conveying a more various set of information than the original barks of wolves did. Barks also became typical in such contexts where originally they were not used – such as the contact seeking calls of isolated specimens, apparently targeted at the human, and not at a canine audience.
References
(2006). Niche evolution and adaptive radiation: Testing the order of trait divergence. Ecology, 87, S50–S61. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[50:NEAART]2.0.CO;2
(2002). Cardiovascular reactivity and the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 727–739. doi: 10.1097/01.PSY.0000024236.11538.41
(2015). Towards a psychology of human-animal relations. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 6–47. doi: 10.1037/a0038147
(2016). Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs. Science, 353, 1030–1032. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf3777
(2014). Voice-sensitive regions in the dog and human brain are revealed by comparative fMRI. Current Biology, 24, 574–578. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.058
(2013). ‘Beware, I am big and non-dangerous!’–Playfully growling dogs are perceived larger than their actual size by their canine audience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 148, 128–137. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.013
(2016). Threat level dependent manipulation of signaled body size – Dog growls’ indexical cues depend on the different levels of potential danger. Animal Cognition, 19, 1115–1131. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-1019-9
(1997). The use of the family life space diagram in establishing inter-connectedness: A preliminary study of sexual abuse survivors, their significant others, and pets. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 53, 435–450.
(1996). Diversification and extinction in the history of life. Science, 268, 52–58. doi: 10.1126/science.7701342
(2008). Effect of reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Behavioural Processes, 78, 464–469. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.03.004
(1999). The evolution of functionally referential alarm communication: Multiple adaptations; multiple constraints. Evolution of Communication, 3, 135–147. doi: 10.1075/eoc.3.2.03blu
(2000).
Pets in the network of family relationships: An empirical study . In A. L. PodberscekE. S. PaulJ. A. SerpellEds., Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets (pp. 209–236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1995).
Social and communication behaviour of companion dogs . In J. SerpellEd., The domestic dog – Its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people (pp. 115–130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1981). The vocal repertoire of the bush dog (Speothos venaticus), crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous), and maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus). Animal Behaviour, 29, 649–669. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80001-2
(1976). Vocalizations in wild canids and possible effects of domestication. Behavioural Processes, 1, 77–92. doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(76)90008-5
(2016). What is a dog?. Cicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
(1991). Hark! Hark! The dogs do bark…. A new theory on why dogs bark. Smithsonian, 21, 119–128.
(2000). The “human behaviour complex” and the compulsion of communication: Key factors of human evolution. Semiotica, 128, 45–60. doi: 10.1515/semi.2000.128.3-4.243
(2017). What’s the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures. Animal Cognition, 20. doi: 10.1007/s10071-017-1098-2
(2016). Ontogenetic effects on gazing behaviour: A case study of kennel dogs (Labrador Retrievers) in the impossible task paradigm. Animal Cognition, 19, 565–570. doi: 10.1007/s10071-016-0958-5
(2013). Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) acoustic repertoire: Form and contexts. Behaviour, 150, 75–101. doi: 10.1163/1568539X-00003038
(1986).
Evolution of ecological segregation in the New Guinea montane avifauna . In J. M. DiamondT. J. CaseEds., Community ecology (pp. S98–S125). Cambridge, MA: Harper & Row.(2014). Humans rely on the same rules to assess emotional valence and intensity in conspecific and dog vocalizations. Biology Letters, 10, 20130926. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0926
(2010a). Dogs’ expectation about signalers’ body size by virtue of their growls. PLoS One, 5, e15175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015175
(2010b). ‘The bone is mine’: Affective and referential aspects of dog growls. Animal Behaviour, 79, 917–925. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.01.005
(2017). Dog growls express various contextual and affective content for human listeners. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170134. doi: 10.1098/rsos.170134
(1991). The ontogeny of social play and agonistic behaviour in selected canid species. Bonner Zoologische Beiträge, 42, 97–114.
(2000). Vocalisation of European wolves (Canis lupus lupus L.) and various dog breeds (Canis lupus f. familiaris). Archiv für Tierzucht, 43, 387–397.
(2003).
Unpacking honesty: Vertebrate vocal production and the evolution of acoustic signals . In A. M. SimmonsA. N. PopperR. R. FayEds., Acoustic communication (pp. 65–137). New York, NY: Springer.(2009). Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: Selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. PLoS One, 4, e6584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006584
(2013). Wolves do not join the dance: Sophisticated aggression control by adjusting to human social signals in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 145, 109–122. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.02.007
(2003). A dog’s got personality: A cross-species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1161–1169. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1161
(2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 1634–1636. doi: 10.1126/science.1072702
(1985). Behavioral profiles of dog breeds. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 186, 1175–1180.
(1981). Animal signals: Ethological and games-theory approaches are not incompatible. Animal Behaviour, 29, 535–542. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(81)80116-9
(2011). When do gestures communicate? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 297–315. doi: 10.1037/a0022128
(1989). Honeyguides and honey gatherers: Interspecific communication in a symbiotic relationship. Science, 243, 1343–1346. doi: 10.1126/science.243.4896.1343
(2002). The evolution of mutualistic interspecific communication: assessment and management across species. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 206–209. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.116.2.206
(2008). Anthropomorphism as a special case of social perception: A cross-species social relations model analysis of humans and dogs. Social Cognition, 26, 129–142. doi: 10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.129
(2015). Comparing supervised learning methods for classifying sex, age, context and individual Mudi dogs from barking. Animal Cognition, 18, 405–421. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0811-7
(1978). Coyote vocalizations: A lexicon and comparisons with other canids. Animal Behaviour, 26, 712–722. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(78)90138-0
(2013). Young children’s interest in live animals. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31, 57–69. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02078.x
(2009). Barking and mobbing. Behavioural Processes, 81, 358–368. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.04.008
(1992).
Animal signals: Motivational, referential, or both . In H. PapousekU. JürgensM. PapousekEds., Nonverbal vocal communication: Comparative and developmental approaches (pp. 66–86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(2008). Dogs can discriminate barks from different situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114, 159–167. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.022
(1981). Olfactory sensitivity to α-ionone in humans and dogs. Chemical Senses, 6, 53–61. doi: 10.1093/chemse/6.1.53
(1978). Vocalisations of red wolves (Canis rufus). Journal of Mammalogy, 59, 27–35. doi: 10.2307/1379872
(2009). The cry embedded within the purr. Current Biology, 19, R507–R508. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.033
(2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239–1252. doi: 10.1037/a0024506
(2010). Child-dog misunderstandings: Children misinterpret dogs’ facial expressions. Proceedings of the 2nd Canine Science Forum (p. 99). Austria, Vienna.
(2003). A simple reason for a big difference: Wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Current Biology, 13, 763–766. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00263-X
(2005). A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 179–186. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179
(2013). What does it take to become ‘best friends’? Evolutionary changes in canine social competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 287–294. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.04.005
(2008). Classification of dog barks: A machine learning approach. Animal Cognition, 11, 389–400. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0129-9
(2006). Can humans discriminate between dogs on the base of the acoustic parameters of barks? Behavioural Processes, 73, 76–83. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2006.03.014
(2009). Dogs discriminate between barks: The effect of context and identity of the caller. Behavioural Processes, 82, 198–201. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.06.011
(2010). Seeing with ears: Sightless humans’ perception of dog bark provides a test for structural rules in vocal communication. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1004–1013. doi: 10.1080/17470210903168243
(1977). On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. American Naturalist, 111, 855–869.
(1994).
Sound symbolism and its role in non-human vertebrate communication . In L. HintonJ. NicholsJ. J. OhalaEds., Sound symbolism (pp. 348–365). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.(1993). Structure and function of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) vocalisations. Bioacoustics, 5, 1–31. doi: 10.1080/09524622.1993.9753228
(2003). Classification of domestic cat (Felis catus) vocalizations by naive and experienced human listeners. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 44–52. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.117.1.44
(2003). Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Veterinary Journal, 165, 296–301. doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-X
Otte D.Endler J. A. (Eds.) (1989). Speciation and its consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Association.
(2000). Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: An experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Animal Cognition, 3, 159–166. doi: 10.1007/s100710000072
(2016). The communicative relevance of auditory nuisance – Barks that are connected to negative inner states in dogs can predict annoyance level in humans. Interaction Studies, 17, 19–40. doi: 10.1075/is.17.1.02pon
(2004). Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 375–383. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.375
(2005). Human listeners are able to classify dog barks recorded in different situations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 136–144. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.136
(2006). Acoustic parameters of dog barks carry emotional information for humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 228–240. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.12.004
(2010). Barking in family dogs: An ethological approach. The Veterinary Journal, 183, 141–147. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.12.010
(2011). Do children understand man’s best friend? Classification of dog barks by pre-adolescents and adults. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 135, 95–102. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.005
(2014). More than noise? Field investigations of intraspecific acoustic communication in dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 159, 62–68. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.08.003
(1999). Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 245–271. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00087-8
(1999). Vocal tract length and acoustics of vocalization in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Journal of Experimental Biology, 202, 2859–2867.
(2000). Vocal communication in free-ranging African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). Behaviour, 137, 1271–1298. doi: 10.1163/156853900501926
(1987).
Wolf vocalization: An integrated model of structure, motivation and ontogeny . In H. FrankEd., Man and Wolf: Advances, issues, and problems in captive wolf research (pp. 313–347). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Dr. V. Junk Publishers.(1993). Vocal communication in the timber wolf, Canis lupus, Linnaeus: Structure, motivation, and ontogeny (Vol. 30, Advances in Ethology). Berlin, Germany: Paul Parey Scientific.
(2008). Defining biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 387–395. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01497.x
(2016). Animals as social objects: Groups, stereotypes, and intergroup threats. European Psychologist, 21, 206–217. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000268
(2012). Effects of presence of a familiar pet dog on regional cerebral activity in healthy volunteers: A positron emission tomography study. Anthrozoös, 25, 25–34. doi: 10.2752/175303712X13240472427311
(2008). Maternal brain response to own baby‐cry is affected by cesarean section delivery. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 1042–1052. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01963.x
(2014).
Auditory communication in domestic dogs: Vocal signalling in an extended social environment of a companion animal . In J. KaminskiS. Marshall-PesciniEds., The social dog – Behaviour and cognition (pp. 131–164). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.(2008). Human listeners attend to size information in domestic dog growls. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 123, 2903–2909. doi: 10.1121/1.2896962
(2009). Context‐related variation in the vocal growling behaviour of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Ethology, 115, 905–915. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01681.x
(2010). Size communication in domestic dog, Canis familiaris, growls. Animal Behaviour, 79, 205–210. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.030
(1976). Canid vocalisations. Behavioural Processes, 1, 57–75. doi: 10.1016/0376-6357(76)90007-3
(2005). Attachment to humans: A comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog puppies. Animal Behaviour, 70, 1367–1375. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.03.025
(2009a). Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science, 325, 1269–1272. doi: 10.1126/science.1176960
(2009b). The dog as a model for understanding human social behavior. Advances in the Study of Animal Behaviour, 39, 71–116. doi: 10.1016/S0065-3454(09)39003-8
(2012). Birds of a feather flock together? Perceived personality matching in owner–dog dyads. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 140, 154–160. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.06.004
(2008). Review of domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: Or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 89, 247–261. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2008.89-247
(2005). A friend or an enemy? Dogs’ reaction to an unfamiliar person showing behavioural cues of threat and friendliness at different times. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 94, 99–115. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.001
(2008). Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 11, 373. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0127-y
(2001). Vocal repertoire in the dhole Cuon alpinus (Carnivora, Canidae) in captivity. Entomological Review, 81, 161–166.
(2015). Rates of signal evolution are associated with the nature of interspecific communication. Behavioral Ecology, 26, 83–90. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru161
(1983). The evolution of communication: Information and manipulation. Animal Behaviour, 2, 156–189.
(2006). Signal detection and animal communication. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 36, 217–247. doi: 10.1016/S0065-3454(06)36005-6
(1993).
Biophilia and the conservation ethics . In S. R. KellertE. O. WilsonEds., The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington, DC: Island Press.(2002). A new perspective on barking in dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 189–193. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.116.2.189
(2004). Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification. Animal Behaviour, 68, 343–355. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.07.016
