Well, now, this is interesting. Corsin Muller at the Clever Dog Lab in Vienna believes he has found a sex difference in the attentiveness of dogs to the expected size of a ball. Dogs were brought into a room and were allowed to play with 2 balls, one big and one small. They then were taken out of the room while the researcher set up the experiment. When the dog returned, he or she saw a ball, on the left side of a visual barrier, that gradually moved to the right and eventually behind the barrier itself. After a pause, a same or other size ball appeared on the other side, as if the ball had continued to move to the right and had passed behind the barrier. The experiments scored how long the dogs stared at the ball that appeared on the other side. This is a standard paradigm used in studies on pre-verbal children. Researchers have found that infants and young children look longer at something that surprises them, and this method has given us insight into how their minds work at different stages of development. (Ex: some species of primates and young children stare longer at two versus three balls rising from behind a curtain, if they saw three balls descend behind it seconds before.)
What surprised the researchers at the Clever Dog Lab was that female dogs behaved as if they were surprised by a different size ball appearing where they expected a smaller or larger one to show up, but male dogs did not. A write up of the research appeared in Science, you can watch a video of a test there (although I found it difficult to see much myself). Their sample size was 25 of each sex, which seems like it might be adequate, but it’s hard to tell without actually looking at the data and knowing how large the variances were. (We’re looking for the study now here at the office, if anyone’s found it let me know.)
I have virtually no explanation for why there would be a sex effect (if there is, I’m still a tad skeptical). The researchers don’t appear to have any answers either, but when interviewed, Stanley Coren (How to Speak Dog and other books) suggested that females may have more of a need to keep track of things visually, like their own puppies. Hummm, not so sure. I’ll admit that I can be a bit sexist some times, having grown up in a world in which women should be seen and not heard, and I’d be fun to say “Yeah, females rock!,” but still… This one has me cocking my head. What about you? Think it’s a real effect here, or perhaps a glitch in sample sizes and some especially focused females? Or more easily distracted males? There does seem to be a general belief that males tend to be more distractable, (I found from a survey on the blog about whether males or females are “easier to train”) but there really isn’t any research on it that I know of.
MEANWHILE, back on the farm: It’s time for me to bring Snickers, Truffles and their three December lambs down to the barn. They have been up in the orchard pasture for the last week so that my young lambs could have access to the creep feeders. The two ewes have problematic udders, and so I am culling them from my breeding herd. I have vowed never to ship any of my ewes, and I’m so happy to report that I’ve found a great home for the flock as a “starter herd” for someone with a Border Collie. I am confident they’ll have a good home, be taken care of well and not abused by dogs in any way. Still, it’s always a bit hard to say goodbye. I’ve been fond of them, especially because their lambs are the surprise lambs born in December when we were in New Zealand. (And whose birth resulted in the now famous line from the husband of the sitter: “Honey, come quick, there’s a little white dog in with the sheep!” I hesitate to create cyber laughing at his expense, because the man is a dear, dear person and became a great shepherd while he was here, moving heaven and earth to keep little Ferdinand alive. But still, it’s just so darn funny….).
I’ve just returned from moving the flock to the barn. I managed to worm the ewes again without any help (I’m not willing to risk Willie just days before his surgery), but the lambs were another matter altogether. They are big and fast and Hans Solo darn near smashed me into pulp, so they’ll have to wait til tomorrow. Here’s what is now called the “Insta-Flock” (as in, an “Instant, ready-made flock), in the orchard pasture right before I brought them down.
And here’s what the ewes were looking at:
Someday soon, Willie, someday soon!
Beth says
Hmmm. I’ve never tried anything like the ball experiment, but my male is way more attentive to changes in general than my female. He’s the “What’s that in your hand? Why are you on the floor? Why is there a car parked where a car is usually not parked? That sign wasn’t there yesterday” dog. He’s also the one that knows whether I’m leaving the house or staying home sick based on what type of pants I’m wearing when I walk down the steps.
But I’m not really sure that those big changes in the environment are the type of attention measured in this experiment at all.
In fact, I don’t know that the experiment measures what it claims to measure at all.
Could it not be that the male dogs just didn’t really care whether the ball was bigger or smaller, and were more concerned about whether or not it was going to be thrown?
Perfect example of things not measure what we think they do:
One test in a common “Dog Intelligence Test” is to put a treat under a cup or something and see how long it takes the dog to move the cup.
Much to my surprise, my very clever dog (who aced the other tests) just looked at the cup and then back at me and made zero attempt to move the cup.
I was puzzled, then my husband noted that we’d trained him not to touch any of OUR stuff without invitation, and clearly a cup fell under the realm of “Stuff That Belongs to Humans.”
We replaced the cup with a toy of his as a cover for the treat, and he knocked it off the second we said “ok”.
So the test did not measure the dog’s ability to get to the treat in this case. It measured the dog’s willingness to respect boundaries even if the reward was obvious.
Similarly, this experiment might be measuring the dog’s interest in whether or not the ball changed size, not whether or not the dog notices. The females might have some reason to be concerned about it, the males in the group might have noticed it and not cared anyway. “Those crazy humans, always trying out amusing games. Heck, a ball is a ball is a ball.”
I dunno, I’m skeptical too.
trisha says
Excellent comment Beth, it is so difficult to know what is being measured. One of my examples is from a “test” of canine intelligence, in which you put a blanket over a dog and score how long it takes them to get out from underneath. The argument was the quicker, the smarter. But surely this only measures how interested a dog is in getting the blanket off, and I don’t see how that would correlate with intelligence in any way. I tried it on my smartest ever BC, Pippy Tay, and she sighed and stayed still for long minutes. She reminded me of a little kid reading a novel under the covers long after she was supposed to turn out the light. I think she loved it.
Kathy Smith says
I have to wonder about the age of the dogs being tested, and the training experience of each. My younger male (not quite a year) is pretty distractable, and would not necessarily expect anything to be happening when shown props (although a ball should definitely get a reaction from him!). My older female (5 in August) competes in dog sports with me and has years of training under her belt. When she sees items, especially ones she has associations with (balls, bumpers, frisbees, treats, other assorted toys), she expects something to happen; either she will get to play with me and that toy, or we’ll train using that toy as a reward. Given those differences in my own dogs, I wonder about the background/experience behind the males and females in the test group.
Andreja says
I agree that it’s difficult to know what exactly is going on here. Perhaps we should include another test that is used with children: showing dogs different objects, including a ball and measuring how long they look at the object (I believe that’s how they figured out that children look at images of faces longer than at other images). When we have those measurements we can analyze the original data in relation to how much a certain dog loves balls, which would help explain if they are looking longer just because it’s a ball or because they we’re interested in the change. Oh, and let’s measure looking time for both small and big version of the ball – I bet my dog would look much longer at the larger one.
Now I just need those 50 dogs and a lab… 🙂
Liza Lundell says
based on a sample of five, three bitches and two dogs, the bitches are smarter but less cooperative, and the dogs are sweeter but not as quick to learn. OTOH, the dogs are less like to throw in variations in “learned” behaviors.
Oh, and the basenjis absolutely love being under the covers! Joey, particularly, likes to get under the comforter, turn around so he’s completely wrapped up, and lie there like a lump.
Lisa H says
Compared to my female BC, my male BC is far more attentive to me, to items, noise, people, etc. He can focus for lonnnnng periods on things he wants such as a ball under the couch or a toy on the table, & has great recall where things were left while my female seems most interested in smells and where I am (proximity is important, not the details). I partly think that because my male has such a significant receptive vocabulary for people & items & behaviors, he appears more attentive since he can be engaged w/so easily & the female does not/is not. We joke that she has a somewhat vacant look at times …. but we love her regardless! And its not just due to her being young (1 yr.) as the male was like this from day one.
Ravana says
Frankly in that video the dog doesn’t seem to be surprised that the ball the came out was smaller than the one that went in. What it seems to me is concerning him is that there is a ball sitting there, just feet away and the stupid handler won’t let go of his collar and let him go get it!
Kat says
My first reaction is that I want to see the study repeated with other items rather than just balls. Ranger would probably score poorly because he doesn’t really care about balls. If his favorite squeaky toy was to suddenly change size it would probably be a lot more interesting. I can sort of buy the argument that the females would be more interested in size due to their role in keeping track of their puppies but I still can’t shake the feeling that there’s something being measured here other than what the researches think they are measuring.
I’m also wondering how they controlled their sample. 50 dogs that were all proven fetch until they drop dogs that can’t get enough of a ball or 50 dogs chosen at random. It seems to me you could get different results depending on your sample.
Marianna says
Did it mention if they were all the same breed and age? That would lend to a big variable, I would think.
mungobrick says
I share your skepticism, not that I have any research to back it up…I find it hard to believe my female, who I think is the most intelligent dog I’ve had, would notice or care about a change in ball size. She’s not really interested in balls, and she’d be too worried about the researcher anyway to concentrate on anything else. It’s not like dogs all have the same temperament…surely a retriever would behave differently than a border collie than a poodle.
I tried Stanley Coren’s intelligence tests on the two dogs I had when his book came out. The golden retriever tested as brilliant because so many of the tests involved getting food. She had no purpose in life higher than getting food. The other dog, who I always felt was brighter, responded when I called her “refrigerator” in the voice I usually used to call her by name. I don’t know why that would make her stupid, she was responding to the tone of my voice, which seems bright to me.
I’m not sure why people like to test dogs using people tests anyway, it doesn’t seem fair. And I still think making a generalization about dogs based on testing such a small sample (were they all the same breed at least?) is maybe going too far.
Dee says
What if the dog is not motivated by balls? I’m not a trainer or a researcher, but I’ve had dogs that have had little or no interest in balls. I have a Cocker now who is obsessed with any ball, any time. She would definitely react to a ball in an experiment differently than any other dog I’ve had – male or female. She would be completely focused on the ball. Plus, she is probably the least intelligent dog I’ve ever had. (We call her the “dumb blond”)
My smarter dogs over the years have had the least interest in balls.
I have the smartest dog I’ve ever had now too – a Mini Aussie. (It is odd to have both ends of the spectrum at the same time.) Balls are the last toy she chooses. If she was in that experiment, she would be trying to figure out what the humans wanted because then they might give her a treat. Ball, no ball, barrier, no barrier – wouldn’t matter. She’s watching the people and trying to pick up clues.
Sarah says
Like everyone else so far, I can’t help but be skeptical. And I too did the blanket-removal intelligence test on a very smart dog who happened to adore being under blankets (and pillows and sofa cushions…). She took her sweet time coming out.
And I have a similar funny husband (my own) story that he wouldn’t mind me sharing, I think. The other day, he looked out the window toward the pasture with the cashmere goats in it, startled, and raced for the door. He hollered over his shoulder that there was a German Shepherd in with the goats! By the time I got out the door, he was on his way back looking sheepish. It was one of the black goats who’s shedding her tan-colored fleece in patches. He said, “I did wonder why they were all just standing around grazing.”
Apr says
I understand the other posters’ comments about “my dog doesn’t care about balls” and “how about using a favorite toy,” however that would just complicate the study… or make it impossible to carry out. It would be too difficult to control the Actual Size Perceived by the dog. Let’s say you decide to use my GR’s favorite stuffed bear. Artists will tell you that an image is just a series of lines, shades and shadows. The more complicated the object’s outlines and details, colors and textures, the more difficult it is (for humans and dogs) to perceive a difference in an object that has been increased in size by 20%.
Keep it simple. The bear has too many details. The scientists wanted the dogs acquainted with the object, and what better method of introduction than play? Squares and polygons aren’t exactly typical shapes for play, so they went with a circle, a simple shape.
Here’s what I find fascinating! Whether its achievable or not to truly know what our dogs are “thinking” or feeling, these scientists are studying how much the dog cares about its own expectations. How much the dog is surprised when its expectations about reality are challenged. Essentially, the study seems to be a comment on dogs’ abilities to “predict the future.” How “logical” are dogs? If you’re on the side of the fence of Behan’s Natural Dog Training, as I am, you believe that dogs are entirely emotionally reactive to the world around them (their “reality”), rather than being logically reactive. And so this study tells us nothing because of the essential problem of assuming that dogs (like the children in the 2 vs. 3 ball study) can expect (predict) the future.
You all know the logic about the sun rising and setting, right? It goes something like this:
Assumption #1) The nature of the sun is to “rise” and “set”.
Assumption #2) The sun rose this morning, and also did so several mornings before that.
Therefore, I expect that the sun will rise tomorrow morning as well.
Applied to the ball study, this is what the “logical” dog is thinking when its size expectations are not met:
Assumption #1) Balls come in multiple sizes
Assumption #2) Balls move
Assumption #3) Balls of one size remain that size
Assumption #4) I just saw a ball transform itself from one size to another!
Therefore, either Assumption #3 or #4 is false.
“Wow,” the dog is thinking, “My mind has just been blown. My logical understanding of reality has just been challenged!”
*** Again, as on the side of NDT’s belief that dogs emotionally react to the world, rather than “rationalize” and logically think about its experiences, I am fascinated by the implications of the study and what everyone thinks it means. I also am not sure what NDT would have to say about this… but I find it easy to dismiss.
🙂
Apr says
Sorry, as I reread my post above, I recognize that my two logical arguments are not really parallels… but at least you get the point about how we humans logically expect something to happen and how the dogs in this study supposedly logically expect something to happen.
It would have been better if I added another Assumption to the sun setting one:
Assumption #3) The sun will set tomorrow morning
Assumption #4) Oh my gosh! I just experienced a day in which the sun did not set!
Therefore, either assumption #3 or #4 is false.
There, that’s better.
Frances says
I am another sceptic – I would want to see the results replicated several times under highly controlled conditions. I also agree about the “intelligence” tests. Sophy loves playing “Dead men arise”, hiding under a blanket until someone tickles her – she would fail that test every time. Both dogs respond to my voice whether I use their names or not – I might be about to suggest a game or a walk. And so on…. The most useful indicators of intelligence I have seen are genuine problem solving behaviours – finding their way back to the gap under the fence when chasing rabbits into an enclosed area; going the long way round in order to jump over the narrowest part of the stream; recognising the names of people they know and going to find them when asked.
Rachel says
I was always skeptical about those preverbal children studies and how they actually relate to cognition and development. I only took one psych class, so I’m no expert though. I’m super skeptical about how this study relates to dogs cognition. Their umwelt is so different from ours that the test may not be that relevant to them or our understanding of their cognition.
The findings, that females look an average of 36 seconds longer than males and that males frequently don’t look at all, do seem to be statistically significant, if only because of the large difference. If the sample size were larger or it turned out that the dogs really were exactly the same except for sex (ie same play, training, upbringing, preferences, etc), then I would be more willing to believe.
I think it’s nearly impossible to tell what is inherent in a dog’s nature (in this case what is inherently different between sexes) by watching behavior. Dog behavior is heavily dependent on his/her parents, owners, upbringing and current treatment. Different styles of dog raising are so variable that it would be a very difficult factor to control for.
And gender-wars conclusions and their evolutionary psychology rationalizations tend to be better for selling magazines than pushing science forward.
Beth says
“Dog behavior is heavily dependent on his/her parents, owners, upbringing and current treatment. ”
This is so true, Rachel!
My girl’s approach to spying a dropped piece of food underneath a low cabinet or behind something is to try like heck to crawl under and get it, no matter how unlikely it seems that she may actually reach it.
My male’s approach is to alert-bark to let us know there is something he can’t reach.
Both are “problem solving”. Personally I prefer the male’s approach because it’s less likely to scratch up my stuff. But the difference reveals nothing about intelligence. What it does reveal is that my male was raised as a lone pup in a house, where he was redirected away from pawing or gnawing at anything that was not his. Barking got him the response he wanted.
My female was raised in a household with a lot of dogs and in that situation, if she didn’t try to grab it first, surely someone else would have gotten it. Plus with a lot of dogs, barking for attention probably did not bring the quick response that the bark of a single dog brings in a purely pet home.
Another poster noted that problem-solving behaviors, like finding a narrow part of a stream, are a sign of intelligence. Quite true! Yet even that can be hard to judge. My Corgis will run full-speed up the steep part of a bank when a gentler path is nearby. It doesn’t mean they are not clever. It does mean that with their particular conformation, running up steep hills poses little problem and they seem to think it’s actually fun. A Chessie that chose to swim the widest part of the stream rather than hop over the narrow part is simply showing her enjoyment of water. And so on.
Beth says
And to get back to the ball experiment, in order to know whether or not this signifies a gender difference, we would need to know the backgrounds of the dogs (as mentioned).
But we also need to know things like:
Does staring indicate interest? For instance, some dogs will look away from things that are very important to them (perceived direct threats when they don’t wish to engage, for instance).
Does interest equate to noticing the change? A dog might notice the change and find that not particularly interesting, for instance.
What do the dogs who don’t stare do instead? One might argue that something like turning to the handler and barking could indicate a higher level of concern than just staring.
What types of dogs were used? Dogs such as Border Collies and setters do tend to stare at things that they notice. A flushing-type dog, like a spaniel, might be more interested in bouncing towards something than staring if it was curious but not threatened. A scent hound would be more inclined to use his nose than to stare, and some dogs are more inclined to air-scent (which might still involve looking in that direction) where others would want to start casting about to ground-scent (which would probably not involve a long direct stare).
Were the dogs spayed/neutered, or intact?
I did not read the whole study, so some of that might be mentioned in the full study.
One thing I have noticed, though, is that males seem more inclined to take their cues from their handler while females are more inclined to take stock in the situation themselves. In that regard, the males could have noticed their handlers seemed unconcerned and said “Meh” while the females did not. Or the males might have been more concerned with the fact that the handler was blindfolded. If I were blindfolded, Jack would be so worried they’d have trouble getting him to pay attention to the ball at all. Maddie would probably not really notice or care that I had a strange new headgear on.
Susan Mann says
I’m thinking it would be interesting to repeat the study on same-age pups, perhaps in one breed or group (herding dogs or sporting dogs) to limit confounding effects of both breed predilections and upbringing. Perhaps a feral dog colony might be appropriate, though then we would wonder if the results applied to our pets 😉
I will say that of the 3 ball obsessed dogs (1 hound mix, 2 bcs, and the hound was probably more OC about balls than most BCs) I’ve had, if I dropped a ball on the ground, the 2 males would probably look at it for a bit, then look at me, whereas my female would look at the ball forever if I let her! I have no idea what that means- I didn’t train eye contact with my youngest, the girl, she’s also “softer” than the boys, and all 3 were raised very differently- the male hound mix fairly traditionally, the male BC, my first BC and first clicker dog when I didn’t understand a lot of things 😉 and my girlie, with a lot of care and forethought, though of course I’ve made plenty of mistakes.
We have to be so careful about assumptions made with animals who can’t communicate directly and have had any level of training at all. Years ago, I took my old dog (the hound mix, Pepper) to the vet, and one of the tests she did was to turn his back feet underneath, one at a time, and a delay of righting it was considered positive for a neurological disorder- until I pointed out that Pepper would let you do absolutely anything to him, and if I gave him a release word, he would right himself immediately, but stand there that way for a long time if not released!
Barbara says
Poor Willie. It’s got to be hard watching from a distance, but not being able to participate. I really enjoy your farm stories. I grew up in a rural area as a kid and so miss that as an adult.
Andrew says
You said the article was published in Science, but I found this in the Journal of Vet. Behavior: http://www.journalvetbehavior.com/article/PIIS1558787810001668/fulltext
Andrew says
I’m sorry, you said just a write-up of the research was in Science. Well, I think the link I posted above is the actual article. Unfortunately, when I go to view the PDF, only the last page of the article is displayed. I will try to log in with my university account when on campus to see if I can access the entire study.
kecks says
i think this is the original study http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/04/20/rsbl.2011.0287.short?rss=1 ?
Eraine says
Yeah I would be interested in seeing the specific details of the study (dog breed, age, any previous training, etc…) before forming a concrete opinion but I really feel it depends on the dogs temperament rather then sex as to their degree of attention as well as how they are trained. I have always preferred to keep only a couple females in my pack, more males because it seems to work out that my females have stronger temperaments and like to be in charge but as far as ease of training & attention they both (male & female) are about as good as I am a trainer! : )
Amy says
What if it’s not sight but rather smell? Don’t we already know that a dog’s sense of smell is far more sensitive than the acuity of their sight? They let the dogs play with the balls before doing the experiment. Perhaps the females were better able to distinguish between the two balls by smell rather than sight.
As far as the “females need to track things visually, like their puppies”, let me tell a short little story about my girl. We had a litter, and one of my potential puppy buyers was wheelchair-bound and could not get into my puppy room. (Her husband had come to meet the parents & litter several times.) It was winter and wet, so when she came I set up a space in my carport for her to greet her new puppy before taking him home. After they had left, I brought my girl, the mama, out for a potty break. She had been inside the entire time and had no way of knowing that we had been in the carport with a puppy. Nevertheless, she made a beeline for the carport, sniffing every nook and cranny to find her “lost” puppy. This experience makes me believe that she tracks her puppies by smell far more than by sight.
I realize this sounds a little wacky, but it’s the first thing that came into my mind.
Alexandra says
I, too, am a bit skeptical of what’s actually being measured. I suspect that the sample size was too small, and that there may be more variation between individual dogs than between sexes.
Joh says
I’m as well are quite skeptical and I would be interested in the breeds and ages of the dogs.
I would assume that e.g. hounds could react different from Terriers and herding dogs.
My female Ridgeback isn’t particular interested in balls, but she is is very much interested in “stuff that moves” – so probably she would react to a (fast) moving ball but not to an idle ball.
Al Magaw says
it’s a common observation amongst sleddog racers that although females TEND to be faster than the males from the same litters, the males TEND to be less distracted and more focussed, more day to day stability in doing their job – my own 35 years of experiences with sleddogs has to agree with the common observation – perhaps that same tendancy is showing up in this experiment?
Jana Rade says
Well, judging by our own dogs, present and past, I’d have to agree with the survey results. Females are more of thinkers than males. That is my own observation. And I’m not really counting J.D. about whom canine chiropractor said: “He doesn’t have two neurons to connect.” LOL I’d have to agree with that.
AnneJ says
I don’t know about the study, but we had kind of a surprise test here the other day. I had moved the sheep to a new pasture when all the other dogs besides Hank were in the house. Then I took Sprite, Pepper, Tessa, Sally and Dodge out for a walk in the pasture the sheep were in all winter. All of them, 4 females and one male, looked for the sheep because they expected them to be in the pasture and looked very surprised not to find them. Dodge, Sally and Tessa (a 4 year old male and 2- 11 month old puppies) stopped looking first, while Sprite and Pepper (ages 2.5 and nearly 2) looked in every corner they could think of. The dog who had moved the sheep, Hank, wasn’t outside at that time.
AnneJ says
I have tried the blanket test with several dogs and many of them just stand there as if they just know you had a good reason for putting a blanket on and are waiting for you to take it off. It could be measuring lack of initiative or cooperation with a human rather than intelligence.
AnneJ says
I haven’t noticed female dogs keeping track of their puppies by sight as much as they do by sound. If a puppy whimpers that is what gets their attention, not the fact that one has wandered off. Possibly the male dogs were more interested in their surroundings and checking things out than just looking at a ball. I’m tempted to try this, although it would be in a very non scientific way since I don’t have the set up.
AnneJ says
Ah shoot, it can’t be done without the video camera set up. Both dogs, male and female, looked at the ball for a second and then right at me. There was no way I could see their reaction without looking at them, and if I look at them, they look at me. It didn’t make a difference if the ball was the same one or a different one. Another thought- couldn’t a dog smell that there were two balls hiding behind the barrier?
Susanne says
I can say after living with experienced mothers that they do keep track of puppies individually and not only their own puppies! Even my old and retired biddies seem acutely aware of how many puppies are in the house, even if they cannot see them, and if one must leave for a vet visit or some such none of them are peaceful until that puppy is accounted for.
I also feel confident this behavior stems from hormones as sterilized females do not care about tiny puppies. I also believe the younger girls learn mothering behaviors from the older females. So a study with females sterilized prior to puberty and males similarly sterilized seems flawed in this regard.
I do not know their feelings on balls but I am pretty sure they know a ball is not a puppy.
My males seem oblivious to baby puppies.
Cindy M says
Before the ban on foxhunting in the UK, many of the larger packs hunted “split packs.” They hunted 3 days per week and hunted bitches separately from dog hounds. There were some strong opinions among hunt staff and those closely involved with the care, management and hunting of the hounds, about differences between the genders. Dog hounds were considered more “steady”, but bitch packs were considered “sharper.” (More alert, more aware, more drive.) For what it’s worth.
trisha says
Cindy M: I’ve heard many comments reflecting the exact same observations in many fields, from retrieving to herding, summarized by the saying “If you want a good, steady dog, get a male. If you want a dog who can be brilliant one day and a disaster the next, get a female.” I wonder how someone could do some good, solid research on this question, I find it fascinating.
Rhonda says
I agree that this is fascinating stuff, but also agree that there are too many unknowns and variables at this point to know if this study really proved anything, let alone anything remotely connected to what tbey set out to measure. The biggest variable, to me at least, would be not only the breeds but especially the prior life experiences of the dogs.
All of which makes me wonder, what would happen if you repeated the experiment with young puppies all from the same litter(s)? There would still be differences in personalities, of course, but at least you’d know the genetic material was the same, and that their environmental influences had been as identical as possible.
Jody says
Weren’t Scarlet and Truffles the ewes that had mastitis last year?
Debbie says
I wonder how many times each dog was tested. The dog in the video knew where to look for the ball, so does that mean he or she had already practiced? If not, how did the dog know the ball was going to reappear on the other side?
Beth says
Trisha, what’s funny is the same is said of horses. Of course in the case of horses, you are almost always comparing mares (which are always intact) to geldings; only pros usually deal with intact stallions.
But generally speaking, geldings are considered to be more reliable and consistent. Mares are known for trying their hearts out for you one day, and being moody temperamental things that refuse to do much of anything the next (“bitchy” is often used to describe it, or “cranky”, or simply “She’s such a mare”).
And it’s widely known among racehorse people that mares will just decide they don’t want to be racehorses anymore. One day you have a champion-caliber mare, the next you have a broodmare because she more or less “retires” herself. From what I’ve read and heard, many seem to view this less as “She’s stubborn/lazy” and more as “She figured she’s already proven all she needs to prove.”
Donna in VA says
Interesting discussion. My only relevant contribution is that my Sheltie will often startle, be suspicious of, or bark at some object he perceives to be “out of place” or “new”. Examples being a donation bag left on top of a mailbox, a table with water jugs temporarily set up alongside the sidewalk, a porta-john installed in a new place. Interesting that the collection of bins and bags on trash day does not phase him.
re: “city husbands” – 2 weeks ago we drove past some vultures feeding at the side of the highway and my husband commented “Look at the ducks!”
Jeff says
I personally am skeptical of these results. My experiences with male and female dogs would put their intelligence at the same, however they tend to treat certain things differently. This is the same as with humans. Male and female are both intelligent however there are certain things human males are by majority better than females at. In the same turn there are things human female are simply better at than males.
Heck even the ball thing, imagine two human males standing in the back yard playing catch with a tennis ball, then all of a sudden one of the guys throws a football. The receiver would notice it but really wouldn’t care that much and might only acknowledge the change with a smile or a chuckle there is no need to say anything. Female on the other hand might catch them off guard as they wouldn’t normally be expecting it they would say something.
Lucia says
I don’t know anything about tests but… I see a lot of aspects which are a bit blurred and whose influence “might” have not been considered so carefully in this spefic case. A lot of readers pointed them out quite effectively.
Nevertheless, as soon as I read the post I thought like Suzanne about the hormonal situation of the dogs involved in the study. Hormones play a very important part in life both for humans and I believe for dogs too. I can just say there are a lot of studies concerning hormones and their influence on human behaviour, memory, ability to interpret, errr inference…? They seem to influence our character too. So I agree with Suzanne, a study involving sterilized females could be interesting, maybe with a more err how can i say, transparent mechanics of the test? There seem to be too many hidden aspects which might have influenced the results, or that maybe need more work to be interpreted and identified (?)
Another aspect I am wondering about is if perception might be so strictly related to intelligence in this specific case. They seem only partially related. What do you think about it? I wish to know more. As I mentioned, I am not an expert…
Great post and great comments too! Thank you! 🙂
DeAnna says
I’ve heard it theorized that male humans are better at tracking linear movement, while female humans are better at seeing peripheral events. The hypothesis was that males evolved as hunters, so the linearity of watching a moving animal and getting an arrow to intersect with its future path was utmost. While females evolved to watch for dangers coming in from the edges, or to notice things out of place. Something to do with the different numbers of rods and cones in the eye and how women are supposed to have more of one (I always forget which) than men do.
I’m pretty skeptical about that claim in itself, and it’s even further fetched to apply it to this study, but I’ll suggest it anyway. That perhaps male dogs were not “surprised” because the ball had continued in a linear path, as they expected it to. The size of the ball was less relevant to them than the path it was traveling. Would the results have been different if the same ball had appeared on the right side of the screen, but at a location that was logically inconsistent with the path it was on when it disappeared? Perhaps then the male dogs would have found it interesting, but the female dogs not so much.
I don’t know about sex-determining genetics in dogs, but I know that in humans, it’s way more complicated than people think, so I’m always skeptical about any claim that “males are this way, and females are that way”, since it’s nearly impossible to define your terms, when you start looking closely at it. It’s possible (and not even that uncommon) to have XY chromosomes with male genitalia and vice versa. In fact, modern research into human sexuality suggests that there are three sex-determining chromosomes, so humans are actually XXX, XXY, XYY, YYY, YXX, etc (I think there are 16 possible combinations). So the whole thing kinda falls apart when you start looking at the details. But like I said, I don’t know about the genetics of dogs. Maybe it’s more clear with them.
DeAnna says
That should be “XX chromosomes and male genitalia”. Meaning it’s possible to have the chromosomes we associate with one sex and the external manifestation that we associate with another.
Andreja says
To all who say the sample was too small: 30 is considered a minimal sample to do any useful statistical analysis, so 25 dogs of each sex actually wasn’t too bad, especially since they weren’t researching sex differences – that was just something that jumped out of data collected. And of course the experiment wasn’t planned well enough to tell us much about that.
DeAnna, this thing about three sex-determining chromosomes is very interesting, though I find it hard to imagine… because one parent would supply one chromosome and the other one would supply two. And the number of possible combinations for three chromosomes would be 8.
DeAnna says
Andreja, here’s some info:
“Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes” is a great layperson’s guide to the massive complexity of genetic sex. There are some small things here and there that I wouldn’t have presented the way the author does, but for the most part it’s a great overview.
If you’re looking for actual research, here’s one about sex-determining chromosomes.
Kruse, R., Guttenbach, M., Schartmann, B., Schubert, R., van der Ven, H., Schmid, M., & Propping, P. (1998). Genetic counseling in a patient with XXY/XXXY/XY mosaic Klinfelter
Julie Jenkins says
Purely anecdotal, but i’ve always thought i noticed a difference in females vs males of the breeds/mixes that attract me (herding breeds). i prefer the females to live with and train, and feel like they are more sensitive to changes in environment and notice stuff more than males. their male counterparts happily carry on without noticing or reacting to stimuli to the same degree.