Anim Cogn (2011) 14:137142

DOI 10.1007/s10071-010-0340-y

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Are dogs (Canis familiaris) misled more by their owners

than by strangers in a food choice task?
S. Marshall-Pescini E. Prato-Previde
P. Valsecchi

Received: 16 January 2010 / Revised: 1 July 2010 / Accepted: 2 July 2010 / Published online: 20 July 2010
Springer-Verlag 2010

Abstract Dogs are highly skilled in understanding a large

variety of human social cues and use them appropriately to
solve a number of different cognitive tasks. They rely on
human signals even when these are contradictory or misleading and ultimately prevent them from correctly solving
a task. In the following two experiments, we investigated
whether the owner and a stranger differently influenced
dogs choices in food discrimination tasks. In Experiment
1, 48 dogs were tested in 3 different conditions: (1) choice
between a large and a small amount of dog pellets with no
demonstration; (2) choice between a large and a small
amount of dog pellets after having witnessed the owner/
stranger favouring the small quantity; (3) choice between
two single food pellets after observing the owner/stranger
choosing one of them. In Experiment 2, 48 dogs could
choose between two foods of different palatability: in
Condition 1, dogs chose between a slice of sausage and a
dry pellet with no demonstration. In Condition 2, the same
choice was available but with a person (owner/stranger)
showing a preference for the dry pellet. In Condition 3,
dogs chose between a single dry pellet and 8 slices of
sausage, with the person (owner/stranger) showing a preference for the pellet. In both experiments, dogs conformed
to the humans indications even though these led to the
selection of the less advantageous option (i.e. the smaller

S. Marshall-Pescini (&)
E. Prato-Previde

Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biomediche,
Sezione di Psicologia, Universita` di Milano, Via Fratelli Cervi,
93, 20090 Segrate, MI, Italy
e-mail: sarah.marshall@unimi.it
P. Valsecchi
Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva e Funzionale,
Sezione di Biologia Animale, Universita` di Parma,
Viale G.P. Usberti, 11/A, 43100 Parma, Italy

amount of food in Experiment 1 or the low quality food in

Experiment 2). However, the owner and the stranger did
not differently influence the dogs behaviour. Results show
that dogs are willing to follow a persons indication even
when this is visibly (if perhaps only mildly) counterproductive to them and that they are socially prepared to rely
equally on cues given by the owner and an unfamiliar
friendly person.
Keywords Dog
Inter-specific communication

Owner
Stranger
Food discrimination task

Introduction
Studies on social cognition in domestic dogs have shown
that dogs are highly sensitive to a large variety of human
social cues and use them appropriately to solve a number of
different cognitive tasks. In particular, dogs appear sensitive to such goal-directed actions as pointing, head turning,
nodding, bowing, glancing and a human placing a token on
the target location in object choice and food location tasks
(Agnetta et al. 2000; Hare et al. 1998; Miklosi and Soproni
2006; Soproni et al. 2002).
The tendency in dogs to respond to such cues appears
particularly strong since they follow a pointing gesture to
an empty food location, despite having seen the correct one
being baited (Szetei et al. 2003). The strong influence that
human gestures and communicative signals have on dogs
performance in cognitive tasks was further confirmed in a
previous study by our group using a food discrimination
task (Prato-Previde et al. 2008). In a free choice between
two plates containing a large and a small food quantity,
dogs would predominantly choose the large, but when their
owners showed a manifest preference for the smaller one,

123

138

they conformed their choice to the owners indication even

though this choice was visibly counterproductive. Interestingly, those dogs that scored higher in the attachment
factor of a temperament evaluation questionnaire
(C-BARQ, Hsu and Serpell 2003) followed their owners
indications significantly more in the counterproductive
condition than the other dogs. This suggests the existence
of a relationship between the effectiveness of human
indication and the nature of the bond with the person
providing the cues. Although there is clear experimental
evidence that dogs form a preferential relationship with
their owner (Prato-Previde et al. 2003; Palmer and
Custance 2007), very few studies have employed the owner
instead of an unfamiliar researcher as the person giving the
social cues during testing (e.g. Kubinyi et al. 2003). Two
studies compared the effects of owner versus stranger
demonstrations employing the detour task (Pongracz et al.
2001, 2004) reporting no preferential learning from either
one or the other. However, in the extinction and in the
reversal learning of a response to the pointing gesture in an
object choice task, the familiarity of the person who emits
the cues plays an important role (Elgier et al. 2009).
The aim of this study was to compare a strangers and
the owners influence on dogs food choice adopting the
experimental paradigm of the previous study (PratoPrevide et al. 2008). In experiment 1, the choice was
between two plates containing the same quality of food (i.e.
commercial dry dog pellets) and indications were given by
either the owner or the stranger; in experiment 2, the choice
was between two plates, one containing dog pellets (standard palatability) and the other containing slices of sausage
(high palatability), thus increasing the cost of the dogs
choice. This could potentially make the role of the owner in
directing the dogs choice more relevant compared to that
of the stranger. Based on the evidence that dogs show
social attachment to the owner and considering our previous results (Prato-Previde et al. 2003, 2008), we predicted
that dogs would be influenced more strongly by the owner
than by a stranger.

Experiment 1
Method
Subjects
Dogs were recruited through personal contacts and advertisements in parks and veterinary surgeons. All dogs were
kept for companionship, lived within the human household
and had either no or only basic levels of training. None of
the dogs had previously participated in cognitive studies.
Forty-eight dogs were divided into two groups:

123

Anim Cogn (2011) 14:137142

Group 1 (tested with the owner) consisted of 14 males

and 10 females, whose age ranged from 6 months to
10 years (mean 5.1 years);
Group 2 (tested with the stranger) consisted of 15 males
and 9 females, whose age ranged from 6 months to
10 years (mean 5.4 years; see the Sect. Appendix for
details of breeds represented).
Procedure
The testing took place in an outdoor enclosed testing area,
approximately 25 m2, unfamiliar to the dogs at Parma
University. Prior to testing, dogs were allowed to freely
explore the area whilst the experimenter carefully
instructed owners on the procedure.
To be sure that the dogs would be sufficiently motivated
to perform the food choice task, the owners were asked not
to feed their dogs at least 4 h prior to testing. The palatability of the food used was always evaluated by offering
the dog a few pieces prior to testing. We used dry food
pellets of medium size for large-medium dogs and of mini
size for small dogs (Purina, Friskies either Adult Complete
or Mini Menu; same composition and palatability), presented in two small white plastic dishes (10 cm in diameter). Two different quantities of food were used during
testing: small, consisting of a single piece of food; and
large, consisting of eight pieces of food. The behaviour of
dogs during testing was video recorded.
The procedure consisted of three conditions: Condition 1 the free choice test between the large and small
food quantity; Condition 2 the choice between the large
and small food quantity with the owner/stranger clearly
showing a preference for the small one; and Condition 3
the choice between the two equally small quantities of food
with the owner/stranger showing a preference for either
one or the other (see below for the detailed description of
each condition). All dogs received a total of 9 trials, i.e.
three trials in each condition. The position of the large and
small food quantity was counterbalanced both in Condition 1 and Condition 2. In Condition 3, the position of the
person was also counterbalanced in the same manner. In all
conditions, the dogs were on a leash and were held 1.5 m
from the axis on which the plates were set; the plates were
set 1 m apart. Between conditions, there was a 2-min
interval during which the dog was offered a bowl of fresh
water and was allowed to walk around freely. Outlined
below is a detailed description of the three conditions.
Condition 1 Free choice test between a large and a small
food quantity. The owner held the dogs leash and was
instructed to avoid interacting/talking to it. The experimenter entered the arena in front of the dog and placed the
two plates of food in the allocated spots, never facing the

Anim Cogn (2011) 14:137142

139

dog and taking care never to look at either one or other of

the plates. She backed off a few steps and waited until the
dog had visually examined the content of both plates, then
instructed the owner to drop the leash to allow the dog to
move towards the plates. Whilst the dog fed from the
chosen plate, the non-chosen one was removed by the
experimenter.
Condition 2 Choice between a large and a small food
quantity with owner/stranger influence.
Owner group The dog was held by an assistant, the
owner was at her left side, and the experimenter entered the
area presenting the plates to the dog as in Condition 1 and
withdrew from the arena. After the experimenter left the
arena, the owner walked between the two plates, turned
towards the dog, approached the plate containing the small
food quantity, picked up the piece of food and with an
enthusiastic tone of voice, said: Oh wow, this is delicious,
lovely, so good!. Then he/she placed the piece of food
back on the plate, backed off a few steps, without further
looking at the dog. The assistant released the dog. As in
Condition 1, the non-chosen plate was removed.
Stranger group The dog was held by the owner, and the
experimenter entered the arena presenting the plates to the
dog as in Condition 1 and left the arena. The assistant with
the same movements described for the owner, approached
the plate containing the small food quantity, picked up the
piece of food and with an enthusiastic tone of voice, said:
Oh wow, this is delicious, lovely, so good!. Then he/she
placed the piece of food back on the plate and backed off a
few steps without further looking at the dog. The owner
released the dog. As in Condition 1, the non-chosen plate
was removed.
Condition 3 Choice between two single pieces of food
with owner/stranger influence. The procedures for both the
stranger and owner groups were identical to those described in Condition 2 with the only difference that the owner/
stranger approached either the right- or the left-hand plate
following the experimenters instructions.

The order of presentation of the three conditions (Condition 1, 2, 3 in sequence) remained constant since in the
previous study no difference had emerged between two
presentation orders (Prato-Previde et al. 2008).
Data analysis
Given the dogs choice could be determined without
ambiguity, the scoring was carried out from videotapes by
a single observer who also checked that dogs had truly
looked at both plates before being released. We recorded
the number of times a dog chose the large food quantity in
Condition 1 and 2 and the number of times it followed the
owners indication in Condition 2 and 3 (i.e., dogs scored
0 to 3 in each condition). Since the data were not normally
distributed, non-parametric tests were used. We used the
MannWhitney test for between-groups analysis, the Wilcoxon test for within-groups analysis, the one-sample sign
test to assess whether dogs as a group performed differently from chance within each condition.
Results and discussion
No difference emerged between owner and stranger influence on the dogs performance in either Condition 2 or 3
(MannWhitney test n1 = 24, n2 = 24; Condition 2:
z = 0.99, P = 0.32; Condition 3: z = 0.24, P = 0.81).
Thus, data of the two groups were pooled for further
analysis. No age or sex differences emerged in any
condition.
In the free choice condition (Condition 1), 79% of dogs
chose the large quantity more often than the small one (i.e.
two or three times; Table 1): thus, dogs as a group chose
the large quantity significantly more often than the small
quantity (one-sample sign test, n = 48, P \ 0.0001).
After observing the person (owner or stranger)
expressing a preference for the small food quantity (Condition 2), the dogs choice changed and 52% of dogs chose
the small quantity more often than the large following the
persons choice. In this condition, the group of dogs

Table 1 Number of dogs choosing the best option in Condition 1 (the larger quantity in Exp. 1 and the best quality food in Exp. 2), and
following the person (owner or stranger) in Condition 2 and 3
Condition 1
0/3
Experiment 1
Experiment 2

1/3

Condition 2
2/3

3/3

0/3

Condition 3

1/3

2/3

3/3

0/3

1/3

2/3

3/3

Owner

12

10

12

Stranger

11

11

10

11

Owner
Stranger

1
0

6
7

8
11

9
6

5
1

2
3

6
7

11
11

8
9

4
6

8
5

4
4

123

140

performed at chance level in the discrimination task (onesample sign test, n = 48, P = 0.89).
The comparison between Condition 1 and Condition 2
showed that dogs chose the large quantity of food significantly more often when they could choose freely than when
the person showed a preference for the small food quantity
(Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 48, z = 4.14, P \ 0.001).
In Condition 3, when both plates contained a single
piece of food, 87.5% of dogs chose the persons preferred
plate more often than the other one. As a whole, the group
of dogs significantly followed the persons choice (onesample sign test, n = 48, P \ 0.0001).
Furthermore, dogs followed the persons choice significantly more in Condition 3 than in Condition 2 (large vs.
small food quantity; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 48,
z = 4.01, P \ 0.001). Overall results are comparable with
previous findings showing that dogs are highly influenced
by humans in a neutral situation and are also significantly
influenced by them in the counterproductive condition.
However, interestingly, the owner and the stranger had
comparable effects on the dogs performance, suggesting
that, at least in this task, the human influence is independent of the relationship bond.

Experiment 2
The experimental paradigm was modified so as to make the
choice even more counterproductive for dogs when following the persons indications. To this aim, both the
quality and the quantity of food was varied: thus in the
most extreme case, dogs had to choose between a dry food
pellet and eight slices of sausage, with either the owner or
the stranger indicating the food pellet as the best option.
We hypothesized that increasing the cost of the dogs
choice, a difference would emerge between owner and
stranger influence, with dogs being prepared to follow their
owners suggestions more willingly than a strangers.
Method
Subjects
Dogs recruitment and criteria selection were the same as
in Experiment 1.
Forty-eight naive dogs were divided into two groups:
Group 1 (tested with owner) consisted of 11 males and
13 females, whose age ranged between 6 months to
11 years (mean 4.2 years)
Group 2 (tested with the stranger) consisted of 14 males
and 10 females, whose age ranged between 6 months to
11 years (mean 3.9 years)

123

Anim Cogn (2011) 14:137142

Procedure and data analysis

The procedure was identical to that described in Experiment
1 except for the content of the plates. In Condition 1, dogs
were given a choice between a plate containing a single dry
food pellet and another plate containing a single slice of
sausage (of comparable size and colour); in Condition 2, the
same choice was available to the dog, but in this case, the
person (owner/stranger) showed a preference for the dry
food pellet; in Condition 3, the dogs could choose between a
single food pellet and 8 slices of sausages, but the person
showed a preference for the single food pellet.
Data analysis was carried out as for Experiment 1.
Results and discussion
No difference emerged between owner and stranger influence on the dogs performance in either Condition 2 or 3
(MannWhitney test n1 = 24, n2 = 24, Condition 2:
z = 0.61, P = 0.53; Condition 3: z = 1.03, P = 0.3).
Thus, data of the two groups were pooled for further
analysis. No age and sex effect was found in any condition.
In the free choice condition (Condition 1), 71% of dogs
chose the sausage more often than the dry pellet (i.e. two or
three times; Table 1). Thus, dogs as a whole chose the
sausage significantly more often than the dry pellet (onesample sign test, n = 48, P \ 0.01).
After observing the person expressing a preference for
the dry pellet (Condition 2), the dogs choice changed and
72% of dogs chose the dry food pellet following the persons preference. In this condition, the group of dogs
performed significantly above chance in the direction of
the persons indication (one-sample sign test, n = 48,
P \ 0.001). The comparison between Condition 1 and
Condition 2 showed that dogs chose the sausage significantly more often when they could choose freely than when
the person showed a preference for the dry food pellet
(Wilcoxon signed-rank test, n = 48, z = 4.41, P \ 0.001).
In Condition 3, when one plate contained eight pieces of
sausage and the other one single food pellet, 56% of dogs
preferentially chose the sausage plate: in this condition, the
group of dogs performed at chance level in the discrimination task (one-sample sign test, n = 48, P = 0.47).
Furthermore, a comparison between Condition 2 and
Condition 3 revealed that dogs followed the persons
choice significantly less in Condition 3 when the choice
was between following the persons suggestion and eating
a single dry food pellet or ignoring the person and
obtaining eight bits of sausage (Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
n = 48, z = 3.71, P \ 0.001).
To understand whether the presence of a palatable food
as the sausage made the choice more relevant to the dogs
and the indication of the humans more counterproductive

Anim Cogn (2011) 14:137142

Fig. 1 Dogs choices matching the owners and the strangers in the
most counterproductive conditions of Experiment 1 (large vs small
quantity of dry food) and Experiment 2 (large quantity of sausages vs
single dry food pellet)

for them, we compared the dogs performance in Experiment 1 and 2. In the free choice task of Experiment 1 (one
vs eight food pellets), 79% of dogs chose the larger
quantity, whereas in Experiment 2 (one food pellet vs one
slice of sausage), 71% of dogs chose the sausage; thus in
both cases, there was indeed a clear preference for what
researchers imagined would be considered the best choice
by the dogs. When comparing the two most counterproductive conditions across studies (i.e. Experiment 1, small
vs large quantity of dry pellets and Experiment 2, one dry
pellet vs eight slices of sausage), no significant difference
emerged in the probability of dogs following their owner
(MannWhitney test n1 = 24, n2 = 24, z = 0.25,
P = 0.8); but dogs were, though not significantly, less
inclined to follow the stranger when having to give up lots
of sausages for a single dry pellet than when they were
giving up the large quantity of dry pellets for the smaller
one (MannWhitney test n1 = 24, n2 = 24, z = 1.9,
P = 0.054; Fig. 1).

General discussion
This study aimed at investigating whether communicative
cues provided by a familiar (the owner) or an unfamiliar
(the experimenter) person differentially influenced dogs
performance in a food discrimination task. The role of
familiarity between the person and the dog engaged in
inter-specific communication has received little attention,
despite the evidence that dogs develop a preferential relationship with the owner with whom they share life and
experiences. Contrary to our prediction, our results did not
highlight any differential effect of owner and stranger
indications in directing dogs behaviour, both when facing
a choice between large vs small quantity of the same food
(Experiment 1) and when facing a choice between foods of
different palatability (Experiment 2). In particular, in both

141

experiments, dogs were equally misled towards the less

favourable choice (small quantity/less palatable food) by
the cues received from the owner and the stranger,
although comparing the two most costly conditions dogs
seemed, though not significantly, less prone to follow a
strangers indications. Similarly, Range et al. (2009) in a
study on social attention towards a model demonstrating
food-directed behaviour found that dogs tended to look
longer at the model when he/she was the owner rather than
a stranger.
Elgier et al. (2009) showed that in the acquisition phase
of an object choice task, dogs did perform equally well
when either the owner or a stranger pointed to the baited
container, but that a difference emerged in the extinction
and in the reversal learning. Dogs that received the cue
from their owners extinguished the response of going to the
pointed container slower and learned the reversal response
faster than dogs that received the cue from a stranger. On
the contrary, in a detour task, Pongracz et al. (2001) found
that owners and strangers were equally effective as demonstrators. Overall, these contradictory results suggest that
the relationship of the dog with the person who emits the
cues could influence dogs performance, but this influence
might be context and task dependent. In our study, the lack
of a differential effect of owner and stranger in directing
dogs choices could be due to several factors: the testing
condition was not stressful enough to trigger a differential
attachment reaction, since the owner was constantly present throughout the test; all subjects were pet dog with no
reason to neither fear nor mistrust humans, since humans in
their lives are usually a source of food, comfort and protection, thus even a stranger may be rapidly considered a
friend; the cost of following the misleading indications of
the persons was not high enough to promote differential
behaviour in response to the owner and to the stranger. Last
but not least, the communication modality used by the
persons included a combination of cues such as talking to
the dog with an enthusiastic tone of voice whilst looking at
it and simultaneously manipulating the food. A number of
studies have indicated the importance of ostensive communication in the dogs learning process from humans. It
has been shown that dogs are faster in socially learning a
detour task if the human demonstrator talks to them, holds
the desired object so it is visible to the dog and maintains
eye contact throughout the demonstration than if the
demonstration occurred without any communicative signals (Pongracz et al. 2004). Two studies have also suggested that dogs may be so sensitive to human
communicative cues as to ignore their own individual
perception of reality (Szetei et al. 2003; Topal et al. 2009).
Thus, it is possible that in this study, the potentially different effects of owner and stranger were overshadowed by
the strength of the communicative cues.

123

142
Acknowledgments This research was supported by funds from the
Universita` di Milano to Emanuela Prato-Previde and by funds from
Universita` di Parma to Paola Valsecchi and MIUR (PRIN 2006). A
special thank to Chiara Zanibelli for her invaluable help in data
collection. Finally, we would like to thank all the owners and dogs
that participated as volunteers. This research complies with the current Italian laws on animal welfare.

Appendix
Breeds of participating dogs
Experiment 1: 2 Golden Retriever, 7 Labrador Retriever, 1
Flatcoated Retriever, 1 Chesapeake Bay Retriever, 1 Nova
Scotia Duck-tolling Retriever, 1 Dobermann, 4 Terranova,
1 Border Collie, 1 Bernese Mountain Dog, 1 Shetland
Sheepdog, 2 German Shepherd, 1 Scottish Collie, 1 Jack
Russell, 1 Toy Poodle, 1 St. Bernard Dog, 1 Cocker
Spaniel, 1 Spinone Italiano; 1 Australian Shepherd, 1
Afghan Hound, 1 Rottweiler and 19 mixed breed.
Experiment 2: 3 Beagle, 1 Scottish Collie, 1 English
Setter, 1 Argentinean Dogo, 1 Bernese Mountain Dog, 3
Dachshund, 4 Labrador Retriever, 2 Golden Retriever, 1
Dalmatian, 3 English Bulldog, 1 American Cocker Spaniel,
1 English Cocker Spaniel, 1 Miniature Schnauzer, 1 Miniature Poodle, 1 Czechoslovakian Wolfdog and 23 mixed
breed.

References
Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food locations that
domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not
use. Anim Cogn 3:107112
Elgier AM, Jakovcevic A, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2009) Learning
and owner-stranger effects on interspecific communication in
domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Behav Proc 81:4449

123

Anim Cogn (2011) 14:137142

Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication of food location
between human and dog. Evol Comm 2:137159
Hsu Y, Serpell JA (2003) Development and validation of a
questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in
pet dogs. JAVMA 223:12931300
, Csanyi V (2003) Dogs (Canis
Kubinyi E, Topal J, Miklosi A
familiaris) learn from their owners via observation in a
manipulation task. J Comp Psychol 117:156165
Miklosi A, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals
understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn
9:8193
Palmer R, Custance D (2007) A counterbalanced version of
Ainsworths strange situation procedure reveals secure-base
effects in dog-human relationships. Appl Anim Behav Sci
109:306319
, Kubinyi E, Gurobi K, Topal J, Csanyi V
Pongracz P, Miklosi A
(2001) Social learning in dogs. The effect of a human
demonstrator on the performance of dogs (Canis familiaris) in
a detour task. Anim Behav 62:11091117
, Timar-Geng K, Csanyi V (2004) Verbal
Pongracz P, Miklosi A
attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog
(Canis familiaris) and human. J Comp Psychol 118:375383
Prato-Previde E, Custance DM, Spiezio C, Sabatini F (2003) Is the
dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational
study using Ainsworths strange situation. Behav 140:225254
Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P (2008) Is your
choice my choice? Owners influence on the pet dogs performance in a food choice task. Anim Cogn 11:167174
Range F, Horn L, Bugnyar T, Gajdon GK, Huber L (2009) Social
attention in keas, dogs, and human children. Anim Cogn
12:181192
, Topal J, Csanyi V (2002) Dogs (Canis
Soproni K, Miklosi A
familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. J Comp
Psychol 116:2734
, Topal J, Csanyi V (2003) When dogs seem to
Szetei V, Miklosi A
lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and
olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and
owner. Appl Anim Behav Sci 83:141152
Topal J, Gergely G, Erdo}hegyi A, Csibra G, Miklosi A (2009)
Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves
and human infants. Science 325:12691272