
Humans believe they understand their dogs. Our research gave us pause.
Dog owners don't understand their pet's emotions as well as they think they do.
Clive D.L. Wynne is a professor of psychology and director of the Canine Science Collaboratory at Arizona State University. Holly Molinaro has recently completed her PhD at Arizona State.
Most of us have powerful intuitions about how our dog is feeling — starting with that flag attached to the rear end, the tail. Tail wagging: dog happy. Tail tucked: dog sad or scared. And yet the scientific literature is surprisingly quiet about whether we are actually good at reading a dog's emotions. If people are going to care for dogs, they need to know how their pet is really feeling — so we studied just how well they understand dogs' emotions.
Our work started during the pandemic with one of us, Clive, in Arizona and the other, Holly, in Connecticut. As we struggled to master Zoom, we realized that manipulating video could help us investigate this question.
First, Holly filmed her dog Oliver playing with her father in several situations. Some positive, like giving him a treat …
... and some negative, like showing his nemesis, Saffron.
Holly then edited the videos, so they showed only Oliver against a black backdrop.
The videos were shown to hundreds of people who were asked how Oliver was feeling. A key finding was that people couldn't say how Oliver was feeling without any context.
Holly filmed her (now much-missed) dog Oliver playing with her father, Rich. Some of the time Rich set up situations that would be considered positive; such as playing with Oliver, showing him his leash or giving him a treat. Rich also created negative situations, such as showing Oliver his nemesis in the house, Saffron the cat.
Holly filmed everything, and then, just as Zoom makes it possible to obscure the background, she edited the videos so that viewers only saw Oliver against a black backdrop.
We then showed 400 people these videos and asked them how Oliver was feeling. First, we showed just Oliver on the black background, and then we let people see the same videos with the full context: Oliver, Rich and anything Rich had with him — like a treat or Saffron. No surprise, when given full context, an overwhelming majority of people rated Oliver as happy in positive situations and less happy in negative ones. But in videos without contextual information — no Rich, no leash, no Saffron or anything else — they couldn't tell us how Oliver was feeling.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
This was a shock. Surely people could tell a happy dog from an unhappy one? We delved deeper. Since context seemed so important, what if the context was … wrong?
Holly and her dad (and Oliver!) went back to work. Holly made movies of Rich and Oliver in different scenarios and manipulated some videos to make it appear that Oliver was playing with Rich when the unedited footage was actually of Oliver being reprimanded. In others, Oliver appeared to be responding to a reprimand, when in reality he had been shown his leash which promised a fun walk.
We sent this second survey to 500 people and found that when they saw Rich doing something fun, such as offering Oliver a treat, they responded consistently that Oliver was feeling good, regardless of whether the footage they saw was of Oliver actually reacting to a positive or a negative situation. When people saw Rich doing something a little mean to Oliver, they thought the dog was more sad and anxious, regardless of what Oliver was actually reacting to. Our participants rated how Oliver was feeling based solely on what Rich was doing.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
You might think, 'Okay, well, that's someone else's dog. I surely know my own dog the best.'
Holly showed her dad the edited videos as well. When Rich watched, even he was stumped as to what his dog was really feeling.
'Oh, that video was definitely the one where I showed Oliver some cheese. He loves cheese!'
'Actually, no, Dad. That is the one where he is being shown the cat.'
'Well, then — '
So what is going on here? Are we truly just terrible at understanding if our dog is happy or not?
Can you guess Oliver's emotion?
Happy Sad
The owner is playing with Oliver, asking him to roll over.
Happy Sad
Oliver is being reprimanded, with the owner pointing a finger at him.
Happy Sad
Oliver is facing an enemy – a cat named Saffron.
A pair of studies in Italy a decade ago helps fill out this picture. A team at the Universities of Bari and Trieste put dogs one by one in a wooden box with cameras above them and a window in front. The cameras were trained on the dogs' wagging tails while the researchers presented things to look at through the window. The researchers showed the dogs their owner, an unfamiliar person and an unfamiliar dog. The dogs showed a strong, consistent bias to wag their tails to the right when shown their owner or an unfamiliar human but a left bias toward the unfamiliar dog, indicating that dogs' wagging tails show their emotional state not simply by how much they wag them but also the side of the body they wag their tails toward.
This likely is connected to how the left side of the brain is more specialized for approach and the right side for withdrawal. In the dog these signals cross over on their way from brain to tail, leading to more rightward wagging for something the dog would like to approach and more leftward wagging for something it would rather retreat from. This is a striking finding, because in all the millennia people have been watching dogs and writing about them, nobody had ever noticed that the direction a tail wags makes any difference.
While humans may be blind to this aspect of emotional expression in dogs, our canine friends certainly notice. In a follow-up study, the researchers connected dogs to heart rate monitors and showed them videos of other dogs wagging their tails. If the dogs saw a left-wagging tail, their heart rate revealed they were more anxious than when they watched a right-wagging tail.
People and dogs have been living together for more than 15,000 years. In that time, what have we learned? Our study along with the research from Italy, shows that, despite intense intuitions, people are poor at recognizing the emotional state of dogs. Instead, we look at everything around the dog to guess what our pet must be feeling but fail to look closely at the animal itself.
This might not seem so surprising. After all, we don't have tails to wag, and we don't sniff our friends' backsides to learn how they're feeling. But it's crucial to the success of our lives together because the world we share with our dogs has changed dramatically over recent decades. Our dogs no longer live in kennels in the backyard, as their great-grandparents did. More than three-quarters of dogs in America today curl up each night in bed with people who consider them family members. Highly trained hounds console patients in hospitals, and there are even churches that involve dogs as part of their ministry. This increased intimacy requires us to accurately gauge our dogs' moods.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Meanwhile, at the other end of the leash, several studies have shown that dogs are remarkably good at recognizing human emotional expressions. They can tell what emotion a human face is showing or respond with empathetic concern to a weeping person. Where our comprehension of dogs' emotions is so weak, their understanding of us is remarkably strong.
We need to confront our biases and be more modest in our assessment of canine emotions. We have to recognize that it isn't easy to know how a dog is feeling, but with careful attention to each individual dog we might be able to learn what their happiness looks like.
Post Opinions wants to know: How did your relationship with your dog evolve over time? Share your responses and they might be published as letters to the editor.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Fantastic Four' wins battle of heroes at N. America box office
"The Fantastic Four: First Steps," Disney's hotly anticipated reboot of the Marvel Comics superhero franchise, conquered the North American weekend box office, earning $118 million and sidelining "Superman," industry estimates showed Sunday. "Fantastic Four" -- starring actor-of-the-moment Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Emmy winner Ebon Moss-Bachrach and Joseph Quinn ("Stranger Things') -- tells the story of a team of heroes trying to save a retro-futuristic world from the evil Galactus. "This is an outstanding opening," said David A. Gross of Franchise Entertainment Research. "'Fantastic Four' was a modest and struggling superhero series; it just caught up with the biggest and the best." "Superman," the latest big-budget action film featuring the iconic superhero from Warner Bros. and DC Studios, slipped to second place at $24.9 million, Exhibitor Relations said. That puts the global take of the film, starring David Corenswet as the Man of Steel, over the $500 million mark. "Jurassic World: Rebirth" -- the latest installment in the blockbuster dinosaur saga -- finished in third place at $13 million. Its worldwide total stands at $672.5 million. The Universal film, starring Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey and Mahershala Ali, takes viewers to an abandoned island research facility, where secrets -- and genetically mutated dinosaurs -- are lurking. "F1: The Movie," the Apple and Warner Bros. flick starring Brad Pitt as a washed-up Formula One driver who gets one last shot at redemption, moved up to fourth place at $6.2 million. "Smurfs," the latest film featuring the adorable blue creatures and starring Rihanna as Smurfette, slipped to fifth place in only its second week in theaters with $5.4 million in North American ticket sales. "The box office is on an excellent run that started two weeks ago," Gross said. "These are not the good old days, but 'Fantastic Four' and 'Superman' are performing extremely well. Superheroes are showing some swagger, and it's good news for the industry." Rounding out the top 10 were: "I Know What You Did Last Summer" ($5.1 million) "How to Train Your Dragon" ($2.8 million) "Eddington" ($1.7 million) "Saiyaara" ($1.3 million) "Oh, Hi!" ($1.1 million) bur-sst/ksb Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Human Babies Aren't Supposed to Have 3 Parents—but Now They Can
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links." Here's what you'll learn when you read this story: The first babies with three biological parents were born out of a new technique to prevent mitochondrial disease. The nucleus of an egg fertilized in vitro was transferred into a donor egg without a nucleus, but with viable mitochondria. Eight healthy babies, including a set of twins, were born with low to undetectable levels of mitochondrial mutations. The only creatures known to conceive offspring from more than two parents are salamanders. Females from the genus Ambystoma (which are notoriously promiscuous) mate with up to three different males, and that DNA is then incorporated into what is known as a triploid genome in their offspring. Now a version of this has become possible in humans. It seems limb regeneration isn't the only way medical intervention can put humans on salamanders' level. Being born with three genomes is not a phenomenon that occurs naturally in Homo sapiens, but in an attempt to prevent certain genetic conditions caused by mutations in the mitochondria, scientists have found a way. Mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA is exclusively passed down from the maternal side. Dysfunction in the mitochondria can lead to metabolic diseases characterized by symptoms such as seizures, developmental delays, blindness, and loss of muscular function. Some can even be fatal. Mitochondrial diseases occur in about 1 in every 5,000 people. They were previously only preventable by using a donor egg or foregoing the conception of biological children altogether. This is why pediatric neurologist Bobby McFarland, of Newcastle University in the UK, led an experimental study that would reduce and potentially eliminate the risk of mitochondrial disease with a new method of in vitro fertilization. McFarland and his research team wanted see if removing the nucleus of an egg and placing it in a donor egg with viable mitochondria would result in healthy offspring. 'We found that pronuclear transfer, a form of mitochondrial donation, was effective in reducing the level of pathogenic mtDNA variant to substantially below the threshold for clinical disease in the offspring of women with homoplasmic (or high heteroplasmic) levels,' he said in a study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. When mitochondria are homoplasmic, all copies produced by cell division have mutations. Mutation levels vary in heteroplasmic mitochondria. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) can screen for these abonormalities, and women with homoplasmy or high levels of heteroplasmy can benefit from what is now known as pronuclear transfer. This involves eggs from both the mother and donor being fertilized with the father's sperm in vitro. Nuclei are then removed from both eggs after ten hours. Since the nucleus carries most genetic material and has no connection to mitochondrial disease, the mother's nucleus is implanted into the donor egg to take advantage of its mitochondria. While there is a chance that a few of the mother's mitochondria may end up in the embryo, it is unlikely to cause a debilitating disease. Levels of defective mitochondria in offspring conceived via pronuclear transfer were low enough to escape that fate. Eight pregnancies (including a set of twins) resulted from the experiment, and while there were a few minor health problems in the newborns, these were either treatable or corrected themselves. Not only were levels of heteroplasty low for the babies, but undetectable in five of them. Developmental progress also turned out to be normal. Though one baby had a form of infant epilepsy, and another had heart arrhythmia and hyperlipidemia, or high levels of fats and lipids in the blood, both of these conditions were treated and resolved. Whether the hyperlipidemia was even caused by mtDNA is uncertain, especially because the mother also had severe hyperlipidemia during her pregnancy. Though there was a chance that any of the mothers with pathogenic mtDNA had a higher risk of complications during pregnancy, which could possibly cause their children to have health issues, there is no proof for now. 'We are assessing, over the long term, the health and extent of heteroplasmy (if detectable) of the offspring,' McFarland and his team said. 'Indeed, the role of mitochondrial donation as a choice for women with a heritable pathogenic mtDNA variant will only be established with the availability of additional data.' You Might Also Like Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss? Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50 Solve the daily Crossword


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Last look: Trump's lofty plan to weaponize space
Fareed explains why President Donald Trump's ambitious new missile defense plan — called 'Golden Dome' — could set a dangerous precedent as the world's first major arms deployment into space.