Communication methods

How has the communication methods of dogs changed due to domestication and their close relationship with humans?

Social behaviour is a complex topic that encompasses a range of behaviours including cooperation, competition, aggression, altruism etc; at the core of it, there is always a cost/benefit equation which will determine the choice of living solo, in groups or a mixture of the two.

Social behaviour happens through biocommunication, which refers to the different ways that living organisms communicate with each other, either intra-species or inter-species. A variety of signals are involved, including chemical, tactile, visual, and auditory. They may be used for a multitude of purposes, such as to attract a mate, warn of danger, mark territory, signal food sources etc.

Chemical signals are the most common form of communication in biocommunication. Molecules are released into the environment and detected by other organisms. For example, pheromones are chemical signals that are used to attract mates or signal territory in many animal species. Chemical communication looks invisible, but its effects are obvious: through emotions, they impact on the energy that a living organism gives off, which in turn can affect the energy of others in the environment. This means that no one is truly separate from anyone else; for example, in the interspecies case of humans and dogs, if either are experiencing fear, their emotion will have a reciprocal energetic impact on the body and cells of the other, causing a transfer of energy. This energy creates an electromagnetic field around the canine and the human body, which can be felt by others in the environment. (1)

This concept is important when working with fearful or reactive dogs, as understanding the energetic impact of emotions can help handlers manage them better. By promoting emotional and energetic balance, it may be possible to help dogs feel calmer and more relaxed in stressful situations, leading to more positive interactions with their environment and other animals. Visual and auditory signals are also important in biocommunication. For example, birds may use complex songs to attract mates or establish territory. Similarly, many animals use visual signals, such as coloration or body posture to communicate with each other. Overall, biocommunication is a fascinating and complex area of study that involves understanding the different ways that living organisms communicate and interact with each other. At its base, there are signs and their interpretations: a living system produce signs which are things that refer to ‘something else’ and provoke another receptive living system (human or nonhuman) to form an interpretant (a movement or a brain activity) in relation to this ‘something else’. Living systems engage in biosemiotic interactions which are interpretative processes. Mammals generally have more semiotic freedom (ability to produce signs) than their reptilian ancestor, and fishes are more semiotically sophisticated than invertebrates. This means that the production of meaning is an essential survival parameter, and it is more complex in the later stages of evolution. [2]

The concept of a semiotic niche emphasizes the importance of signals and signs in the survival and adaptation of a species. A semiotic niche is defined as the set of signals that prevail in the ecological niche of a species. To survive, a population must master and utilize the set of visual, acoustic, olfactory, tactile, or chemical signs that are relevant to its semiotic niche.  Different species with different semiotic niches can coexist and cooperate. This is the case of men and dogs, but of course co-operation does not equal full understanding! To this effect, the term ‘signal sensitivity’ is used by Scandinavian behaviourists to describe how dogs can misinterpret human facial and body language: a smile may be perceived as an aggressive threat because it resembles the display of teeth in dog language. This situation is normally linked to a lack of human imprinting and socialisation.[3] The opposite of course is true: domestication and a close relationship with humans has increased the canine signal repertoire in relation to dog-human communication. Researchers at Linköping University in Sweden have identified a link between 5 genes and dogs’ social ability; this suggests that there may be a genetic basis for this trait. The fact that four of the identified genes show similarities to certain conditions in humans (for example, autism) is also intriguing and this may suggest that there could be some overlap between the genetic basis of social behaviour in dogs and certain aspects of human behaviour.

Through the process of domestication, dogs have evolved into animals that can form strong emotional bonds with their humans and understand and respond to human communication cues and emotions: they can pick up on subtle cues, tone of voice, facial expressions and respond accordingly. The suggestion is that dogs have a strong trait to seek human company and that this is gene related, as opposed to their distant cousins (wolves) and other species.[4] With reference to the ability to understand and communicate with humans in ways that other animals cannot, Brian Hare, an evolutionary anthropologist who has studied the cognitive abilities of dogs, has called this ability the "genius of dogs" and has seen it as unique to dogs. [5] On the contrary, Clive Wynne argued and proved that any animal that has been reared with people from an early age may develop similar abilities and suggests that it is only the close relationships that humans formed with dogs through domestication and breeding for thousands of years that has made dogs particularly attuned to human social cues and communication.[6] What is more interesting and what could form the basis of dogs ‘tendency to follow humans’ gestures and seek human proximity is the predisposition towards help-seeking from humans when faced with difficult problem-solving tasks,[7]  something that wild animals and other domesticated animals do not have or have in a lesser degree. I am inclined to think that even this trait may be the result of living in close proximity to human for thousands of years.

Domestication has had its effects on anatomical features and behaviours of dogs. For example, Dr Juliane Kaminski from the psychology department at the University of Portsmouth suggests that, during the process of domestication, dogs have developed a unique facial muscle anatomy to facilitate communication with humans. Specifically, dogs, unlike wolves, uniformly have a muscle (the levator anguli oculi medialis) that raises their inner eyebrow. The study found that dogs produce the eyebrow movement more frequently and with greater intensity than wolves. This muscle allows dogs to produce an eyebrow movement that resembles a human expression of sadness, which may trigger a nurturing response in humans. Dogs capable of producing ‘puppy dog eyes’ would have had a selective advantage because humans preferred more expressive and communicative dogs.   Click on this link (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820653116) to see the videos at the end of the article which show the differences in LAOM movement between wolves and dogs.[8]

There are suggestions that domestication has influenced canine communication specifically to address communication towards humans. When communicating with humans, dog may use the same signals they use when communicating with dog, but some signals may take on a different meaning when directed towards humans. [9]In human-dog communication, eye contact is an important component.[10]Dogs pay attention to human gaze and its direction. They rely on eye contact to determine when communication is relevant and directed at them; pointing gestures are less salient than human gaze, but more salient than verbal cues. This is clearly visible in the sport of dog agility: pointing at an obstacle whilst looking elsewhere will result in the dog missing the obstacle whilst going straight to where the handler’s gaze is directed. Verbally cueing an obstacle whilst pointing away from it will also result in the dog missing the obstacle. [11]

Through domestication and life in proximity with humans, dogs have also developed specific acoustic expressions. Feral and stray dogs, who do not rely on human help, do not show this variety of auditory signals.

Both domestic dogs and wolves bark as an aggressive signal towards intruders, signalling the willingness to defend themselves and this function of the bark may well have been what made protodogs appealing to early hominids. Contrary to wolves and through selective pressure though, adult dogs use barking also in positive circumstances including play.[12]Because different breeds show a strong variability in barking, this could be due to domestication and selective pressure for different behavioural roles: exaggerated barking and growling in the guarding breeds where the protective instinct is selected for; frequent barking in the Terriers or Scent Hounds whose barking is useful to alert hunters to their location whist in pursue of the pray.[13]Basenjis are known for their unique vocalizations, often described as a "yodel". These sounds are quite distinct and different from the typical barks or howls produced by other dog breeds. So, dog breeds can have unique traits, including variations in their vocalization abilities and anatomical structures. Basenjis' unique vocalizations are just one example of this rich diversity. [14]

The same domestication influence can be noticed in other auditory signals, for example growling. Wolves and dogs growl for close-range communication to establish rank, to warn off and to pre-empt an actual attack. Both also use growling in playful situations, but the difference is that wolves will only ever do that in their juvenile phase, whilst dogs continue to play growl also in adulthood. [15]

On our part, to communicate with dogs, we use our voices (with high pitch vocals proving more enticing, whilst lower ones more distant increasing), body movement (running away tends to generate chasing – useful for recall), body posture (a lower and less direct body posture tends to make dogs more comfortable), facial expressions, gaze (can be useful to indicate directions). I firmly believe that, as dog owners, we should educate ourselves on all aspects of animal welfare and wellbeing, of which communication methods is an essential contributor.  We should see ourselves as keepers of a highly enriched captive environment, where learning each other’s language and methods of communication are a vital element for the health of the central nervous system of our pets or working dogs, inducing increased cortical thickness and synaptic activity. This, in turn, will impact positively on the physical and psychological wellbeing of all animals. [16]

[1] Gutteridge, Sally. Inspiring Resilience in Fearful and Reactive Dogs (pp. 116-117). Kindle Edition.

[2] Hoffmeyer, J. (2010) “A biosemiotic approach to the question of meaning,” Zygon®, 45(2), pp. 367–390.

[3] Abrantes, Roger. Dog Language - An Encyclopaedia of Canine Behavior (pp. 219, 226). Dogwise. Kindle Edition

[4] Persson, M.E. et al. (2016) “Genomic regions associated with interspecies communication in dogs contain genes related to human social disorders,” Scientific Reports, 6(1).

[5] Hare, B. and Woods, V. (2013) The genius of dogs: Discovering the unique intelligence of man’s best friend. London: Oneworld. 

[6] L., W.C.D. (2020) “5,” in Dog is love: Why and how your dog loves you. London: Quercus. pp. 37-49.

[7] Persson, M.E. et al. (2016) “Genomic regions associated with interspecies communication in dogs contain genes related to human social disorders,” Scientific Reports, 6(1).

[8] Kaminski, J. et al. (2019) ‘Evolution of facial muscle anatomy in dogs’, Proceedings of the National Academy Of Sciences, 116(29), pp. 14677–14681. The study also found that the retractor anguli oculi lateralis muscle (RAOL), responsible for pulling the lateral corners of the eyelids toward the ears, was typically more developed in domestic dogs than in gray wolves..  

[9] Siniscalchi, M. et al. (2018) “Communication in dogs,” Animals, 8(8), p. 131.

[10] Dogs use eye contact in a different way when communicating with humans compared to when communicating with other dogs. In dog-to-dog communication, direct eye contact is threatening, and may escalate into aggressive behavior. However, when dogs make eye contact with familiar humans, it can be a sign of affection, trust, or an attempt to communicate. Dogs can also use eye contact to gain attention or to request something from their human companion. A very particular look is used to ask for help when injured. This ability to use eye contact in a different way with humans must be the result of the domestication process, as dogs evolved to live and work alongside humans.

[11] Timing of agility cues: Lisa Frick and Hoss (2012) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WMfCg5v3MM (Accessed: 14 August 2023).

ta minute 2.41 you can see that Lisa had to turn her gaze towards the dog for the dog to move in her direction; had she maintained a straight gaze ahead, the dog would have bypassed the jump and continue on the path parallel to her.

[12] Kaminski, Juliane; Marshall-Pescini, Sarah. The Social Dog (p. 135). Elsevier Science. Kindle Edition.

[13] Ibid, p.141

[14] Ibid, p.142

[15] Ibid, p.138

[16] Jacobs, B. et al. (2021) ‘Putative neural consequences of captivity for elephants and cetaceans’, Reviews in the Neurosciences, 33(4), pp. 439–465.

Bibliography

Abrantes, Roger. Dog Language - An Encyclopaedia of Canine Behavior. Dogwise. Kindle Edition

Gutteridge, Sally. Inspiring Resilience in Fearful and Reactive Dogs. Kindle Edition

Hare, B. and Woods, V. (2013) The genius of dogs: Discovering the unique intelligence of man’s best friend. London: Oneworld. 

Hoffmeyer, J. (2010) “A biosemiotic approach to the question of meaning,” Zygon®, 45(2).

Jacobs, B. et al. (2021) ‘Putative neural consequences of captivity for elephants and cetaceans’, Reviews in the Neurosciences, 33(4), pp. 439–465.

Kaminski, J. et al. (2019a) ‘Evolution of facial muscle anatomy in dogs’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(29), pp. 14677–14681.

L., W.C.D. (2020) “5,” in Dog is love: Why and how your dog loves you. London: Quercus. 

Persson, M.E. et al. (2016) “Genomic regions associated with interspecies communication in dogs contain genes related to human social disorders,” Scientific Reports, 6(1).

Siniscalchi, M. et al. (2018) “Communication in dogs,” Animals, 8(8).

Timing of agility cues: Lisa Frick and Hoss (2012) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WMfCg5v3MM