1.

Introduction and theoretical framework

In the last few decades many researches have aimed at understanding the animal
behaviour. The majority of them could be included in two big groups: some explain the results
with one of the forms of conditioning, while others with higher-ordered processes.
The concept of classical conditioning was introduced after Ivan Pavlov. He
investigated the digestive function of dogs by externalizing a salivary gland so that he could
collect, measure, and analyze the saliva produced in response to food under different conditions.
He noticed that the dogs tended to salivate before food was actually delivered to their mouth”
(Buser, 2006). He considered this observation so interesting that he changed the focus of his
research, thus getting to the term of conditional reflexes. Pavlov thinks that a conditioned reflex
could be obtained by linking up the action of a new stimulus with an unconditioned reflex. The
result is a conditioned response, which therefore has been unconditioned (Pavlov 1927).
The theory of mind - belonging to the second category - is
similarly interesting. It refers to the ability of making inferences about others’ mental states
(beliefs, intentions and desires), and it is investigated by the following tasks: first order false
belief task, second order false belief task, appearance-reality task (mistaken attribute task,
mistaken identity task), mistaken contents task, unexpected location task, social faux pas task.
These tasks have a common disadvantage: they largely depend on verbal coding and
understanding. For example, Astington and Jenkins (1999) and de Villers & Pyers (2002)
confirmed that many components of the language are necessary for understanding the theory of
mind tasks.

2. Statement of the problem

Based on the data of earlier studies it is impossible to determine what kind of knowledge
and theory the dogs have to understand the people’s knowledge and mental state. If we find the
answer to this question, we will contribute to savvy both the animal and human behaviour.
 3. Purpose of the study

It is to determine whether the dogs are able to:

- acquire more complex associations in a suitable manner for us

- recognize that people are aware of what they see, and in most of the cases they act
accordingly
- understand what is going on in people’s mind

To conclude, this research aims at studying whether the dogs possess the theory of mind
or not.

4. Hypotheses

H1. To the end of the conditioning phase whenever a person goes to the box containing
food, as a reaction dogs will salivate, or else they will manifest avoiding behaviour (shaking their
head violently, opening their mouth and making movements with their tongue).

H2. When E1 returns to the dogs of the first experimental group, the absence of salivation
and avoiding behaviour will be observable.

H3. Dogs will witness for a longer period the situation when human action contradicts
knowledge. For instance, even if E1 notices that the food is relocated into the other box, he still
goes to the original one.

H4. If the dogs possess the theory of mind, then - considering the responses - there will
be a difference between the first and second experimental group, as well as, between the first
experimental and the first control group, meanwhile there won’t be any difference between the
second experimental and first control group.

(The dogs of the first experimental group might assume that there is no alteration in the
person’s state of consciousness, since he was not present. However, the members of the second
experimental group might assume that there is an alteration in the person’s state of
consciousness, as E1 can see that the food has been removed. The participants of the first control
group can certainly know about the alteration, because E1 was there when the food was
transferred into another box.)

5. The design - Methods and procedures

 Participants

During our research we would like to work with 56 dogs randomly distributed into 4
groups (experimental 1, experimental 2, control 1, control 2), so that – considering the most
relevant factors – every dog in the experimental group will have its partner in the control group.
We would carry this through considering the most critical factors: breed (14 different: Afghan
hound, Chow chow, Lhasa Apso, Pekingese, Shar Pei, Shih Tzu, Tibetan Terrier, Saluki, Basenji,
Akita Inu, Shiba Inu, Samoyed, Siberian Husky, Alaskan Malamute), sex and age (4-5-year-old
dogs).

 Materials

We intend to combine two well-known methods. The first would be a Pavlovian

procedure, which consists in fastening a container to the salivary glands of the dog in order to
measure the degree of salivation. The second is an adaptation of Wimmer and Perner’s Sally-
Anne test. In the original version Sally puts her toy in the basket and then leaves the scene.
While Sally is away and cannot watch, Anne takes the toy out of Sally's basket and puts it into
her box. Sally then returns. The question is: Where will Sally look for her toy?

 Procedure

Conditioning phase

The first phase would be identical in the case of all the three groups.

1. We lead the dog into a room, where there are two perfectly identical and empty boxes. We
stop in a way that he can seat himself facing both boxes, which he can see them quite well.
2. The Pavlovian apparatus is fastened onto the dog so that the degree of salivation could be
measured.

3. An experimenter (E1) enters the room. E1 stops in front of the dog, but behind the two boxes.

4. The person who has seen the dog into the room shows him and E1 that the boxes are empty.
After that, he walks the dog to where he was standing originally, while he is continuously able to
keep an eye on the boxes.

5. One minute later E2 arrives and puts the food he has brought into the box on the right.
6. E1 goes to the above mentioned box, when E2 rewards the dog with food.
7. E2 leaves the food in the box on the right, but E1 goes to the one
on the left. Consequently, the dog receives a reward that tastes bitter.
8. We do the same with the box on the left. Then we
combine them until the dog learns to salivate solely when E1 goes to a box that contains food.
Once the dog has performed this, ten times in a row, we move on to the next phase.

Testing phase for the first experimental group

Unlike in the case of the conditioning phase, some changes will take effect from the sixth step
on. The sixth step: E1 exits the room. E2 puts the food over into the other box. E1 re-enters the
room, stops at his original place and watches the dog 25 seconds long. He approaches the boxes
in such a way that one cannot be sure which one he is going to. He comes to a halt at half a meter
in front of them (at an equal distance from both), waits for 15 seconds and then chooses the box
containing food. We are interested in whether salivation starts during the 40 seconds while E1 is
considering his decision. In case it doesn’t, and the animal engages in avoiding behaviour, then
we suppose he is aware of both E1’s choice and the fact that he will be given bitter food.

Testing phase for the second experimental group

This phase is identical with the first one with a small difference. The original boxes are replaced
with transparent ones.

Testing phase for the first control group

It differs from the two previous interventions in three items: E1 does not leave the room, E2
shifts the food over into the other box while E1 is also present, and the boxes are not transparent.

Testing phase for the second control group

It corresponds with the first control group in every respect, except for that E1 goes to the empty
box instead of the one with food at the end of the examination. We would like to find out
whether the dogs understand that humans are aware of what they see and they mostly act
accordingly. If they do, they will watch for a longer period of time whenever human action
contradicts knowledge. For instance, despite food is transferred into the other box, the person
still goes to the original one.

6. Limitations and delimitations

One of the limitations of our research may stem from the fact that we employ methods on
animal samples which have been tested on humans. That’s why it might occur that the results
won’t reflect neither reality nor the dogs’ theory of mind. Another weak point of our research is
attributing such complex abilities and skills to dogs (and relating their behavioural responses to
them) that they might not even have.
One of the strong points of our examination worth mentioning is that, in order to achieve
our goals, we figured out some conditioning-based tasks, which otherwise give results not
interpretable in terms of the principles of conditioning.
Its most relevant benefit is that the behavioural response expected and
induced by the stimulus, is not explicit, it does not require the action of the animal (it stays
implicit). Thus, it is possible for us to obtain more exact and reliable results. For instance, it may
occur that the dog is aware of the human's knowledge and intention, and recognizes that all these
lead to a certain behaviour, but he is not motivated to respond to it.

7. Significance of the study.

 The significance of our research consists in summing up the most relevant information
based on earlier experiences, and trying to give an answer to one of the most important questions
which can be bound to the animal behaviour: do the dogs have either a theory of mind, or any
information concerning people’s knowledge?
Recognizing the weakest points of the earlier studies (results can be explained on
several levels), we aimed at creating a series of tasks of which results cannot be explained with
associative learning alone. If our hypotheses are proved, then they might serve not only a better
understanding of the behaviour of dogs, but they can also help people see their pets from other
perspectives. Humans will no longer take them into consideration based on a stimulus-reflex
scheme, but they will understand that even animals can have thoughts and feelings; they can
understand our intentions and go by them. This would result new approaches not only from a
theoretical, but also from a practical point of view (it would also have an influence on the
methods applied throughout their rearing). It would be significant for us, too, since it could serve
with points of reference during our orientation in the field and our later examination dealing with
children.

I would prefer to conduct my research at the Smithsonian Institution, since this is the only
way to gain access to the necessary research facilities and resources.

In the conditioning phase I need 60 minutes (two sessions, 30 minutes per session) with
each dog per week, nine weeks long. The testing phase will take place in the 10th’s week.

Do dogs have a theory of mind?

One of the most exciting questions that researchers investigating animal

behaviour might face is that whether it (animal behaviour) should be considered a simple
response given to certain stimuli, a result of some type of conditioning, or it is influenced by
higher-ordered processes like the theory of mind. The present study aims at answering this very
question.

We will work with 56 dogs distributed into 4 groups: two experimental and two control groups.
The primary criterion in creating the groups – while considering the most relevant factors
(species, sex and age – 4-5 years) – was that every dog in the experimental group should have its
partner in the control group.

We combined two well-known methods: Pavlov’s classical conditioning case and

Wimmer and Perner’s Sally-Anne mistaken location task. The data will be processed in SPSS
and other statistical programmes.

Consequently, we can state that if dogs possess the theory of mind, then they will react
differently depending on the various conditions (the knowledge, intention and behaviour of the
person).