
Study Finds People Aren't Good At Reading Dog Body Language
Humans don't understand dogs' body language and corresponding emotions as well as we think we do, according to new research from the Canine Science Collaboratory at Arizona State University.
The study involved a favorite activity of many dog lovers: watching dog videos. As part of her Ph.D. research, Holly Molinaro shot videos of her father interacting with the family dog, Oliver. Sometimes he would offer Oliver a treat or show him a leash for a walk, which made the dog happy. In other videos, he might reprimand Oliver or hold up his nemesis, a cat named Saffron.
Working with Clive Wynne, Ph.D., director of the Canine Science Collaboratory and author of 'Dog is Love: Why and How Your Dog Loves You,' Molinaro then showed three versions of the videos to 400 study participants — which led to surprising results.
When the videos were unedited, a majority of people could correctly identify whether Oliver was happy or stressed. But when the videos were edited to simply show Oliver with a black background, they couldn't form an opinion about the dog's emotions.
When the videos were edited to show Oliver reacting to a different prompt than what actually happened — like the father showing Oliver a cat in the video, when in reality he had been offering the dog a piece of cheese — participants had strong and wrong opinions about how Oliver was feeling.
'The whole study was very surprising,' Dr. Wynne said. 'The finding, in a nutshell, is that when you show people a video of a dog reacting to something and you ask them how the dog is feeling, they will look at everything you show them except the dog when making their mind up. So people are really bad at paying attention to dogs when it comes to assessing how a dog is feeling — whether a dog is happy or sad.'
One important caveat is that due to ethical considerations, the research did not involve doing anything to make Oliver extremely distressed, Dr. Wynne notes. Instead, the research was limited to potentially negative things a dog might encounter in an ordinary day, such as a cat or nail clippers.
'I'm pretty confident that people would have accurately identified a terrified dog,' he says. 'We just wouldn't do that.'
Since dogs live in 68 million U.S. homes, Dr. Wynne feels it's imperative that people make a concerted effort to better read their emotions.
'One of the morals I draw from our research is that I encourage people to get to know their own dog,' he says. 'Now I'm on a mission to convince people that they don't really know what a dog is feeling and that they should give their dog a chance to teach them.'
He suggests paying close attention to what your dog does when they're typically excited or happy about an activity, such as seeing a leash when it's time for a walk.
'We need to watch our whole dog from the tip of their tail to the tip of the snout and everything in between. The ears can be expressive. Obviously the hackles, how the hair moves, the overall bodily posture,' he says. 'As much as possible, just try to be like a scientist: don't watch by imposing your preconceptions, watch neutrally and learn. Let the dog teach you what their happiness looks like, what their anxiety looks like.'
Puppies and dogs are individuals, so Dr. Wynne advises against making one-size-fits-all assumptions about canine body language, facial expressions and noises. For example, growling is generally considered to be a threatening warning from a less-than-happy dog. But his late mixed-breed dog, Xephos, used to growl in happiness. (Similarly, attuned people with Rottweilers often know their dogs are happy when they hear the 'Rottie Rumble' during play — almost like a cat's purr.)
When a dog yawns, they might be sleepy or just awakening from a nap, but yawning can also be a sign of stress (particularly when ears are pinned back, and eyes are averted). A 'smiling' dog might just be keeping their mouth open because it's hot.
While some people believe a wagging tail is always a happy sign, it can also indicate anxiety. Research in Italy found that when dogs wag their tails to the right, they're experiencing positive emotions; conversely, a left-wagging tail denotes negative emotions, he notes.
Ultimately, learning to understand how our dogs are feeling will help us be better companions, according to Dr. Wynne.
'We have 80 million dogs living in our homes in the United States, and the vast majority of us want what's best for our dogs – we love them and want what's best for them,' he says. 'But how can we do that if we don't actually know when they're happy and when they're stressed? We have to know how they're feeling in order to be able to give them their best lives.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Medscape
38 minutes ago
- Medscape
CVD Mortality Higher in Women With Inflammatory Diseases
Although cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related mortality decreased significantly from 1999 to 2020 in both men and women with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), women consistently had higher rates of CVD-related mortality than men over the 22-year period. METHODOLOGY: Researchers analyzed CDC Multiple Cause of Death files from 1999 to 2020 to assess the sex differences in CVD-related mortality in patients with IMIDs. They identified CVD-related deaths with underlying IMIDs in the United States using diagnostic codes. IMIDs such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and systemic sclerosis were analyzed. The analysis included 281,355 IMID-related deaths and 127,149 CVD-related deaths over a period of 22 years. Annual crude and adjusted death rates were estimated. TAKEAWAY: Age-adjusted CVD-related mortality for women with IMIDs declined from 3.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 1.4 per 100,000 in 2020, whereas the rate in men with IMIDs declined from 2.3 to 1.1 per 100,000 ( P < .01). < .01). However, women had higher mortality than men throughout the study duration (mortality rate ratio, 1.5; P < .01). < .01). Cerebrovascular disease and ischemic heart disease were major causes of death, with women more affected than men; women experienced mortality from arrhythmia and cardiac arrest at more than twice the rate of men. Among patients with IMIDs, women with rheumatoid arthritis had disproportionately higher crude CVD-related mortality than men with rheumatoid arthritis. IN PRACTICE: 'Addressing these risks requires increasing awareness of atypical cardiovascular symptoms in females with IMIDs, enhancing early detection through advanced imaging, and ensuring equitable access to therapies like biologics,' the study authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Issam Motairek, MD, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland. It was published online on May 5, 2025, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes . LIMITATIONS: The potential inaccuracies in the codes for identifying the cause of death may have misclassified IMIDs or CVD-related causes. The aggregate data structure prevented the analyses of individual-level factors such as severity of disease or treatments. Less common IMIDs were excluded, which may have underestimated their contribution to CVD. DISCLOSURES: This study received no specific funding. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.


Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has threatened to bar federal scientists from publishing in top medical journals. This move risks backfiring on two major fronts. First, it will only accelerate private industry's sway over the scientific record. Second, launching new, government-run journals will demand vast resources and years of effort — and still won't earn the credibility of established publications. With nearly five decades in medical and scientific writing, editing, and publishing — across nonprofit and commercial organizations, legacy print and digital platforms, and both subscription-based and open-access models — I write from experience. To see the flaws in Kennedy's proposal, we need to understand what works and what doesn't in science publishing. Primary, peer-reviewed medical/scientific literature has evolved and thrived in a culture of self-criticism, through letters columns, corrections, retractions, and open debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) , The Lancet , and JAMA remain the gold standards in medical publishing because of their rigorous peer review, global reach, and editorial independence from government or corporate influence. Here's where RFK Jr's main objection with the current system seems to lie. The Secretary has portrayed medical journals as hopelessly corrupted by industry. Extensive firewalls, guidelines, and rules have been established to govern the relationship of industry to medical journals. They rest largely on honest disclosure with authors, editors, and readers paying attention. Cracks in those barriers are not unknown. But the solution lies in strengthening these firewalls, not sidelining them. A ban on government employees from submitting to NEJM , The Lancet , JAMA, and other top-tier titles will deliver more power — not less — to pharmaceutical, device, and biotech companies to set the scientific agenda. Far from reducing 'corruption,' such a misguided policy would magnify the role of the very stakeholders RFK Jr decries. And if federal grant support diminishes, the research that is published will become increasingly supported by industry, compounding the mistake. The notion of creating new government-owned medical journals from scratch is not an absurd idea. But Kennedy's illusion of fast-tracking NIH-affiliated "preeminent journals" that stamp federal‐funded work as unquestionably legitimate is a gargantuan endeavor. Building editorial boards, peer‐review standards, submission platforms, indexation in PubMed, and marketing to researchers worldwide takes years of work from countless individuals and would cost a substantial amount of money. Even then, a journal's reputation rests on trust and perceived independence. Readers judge not only the science but also the integrity of the editor–owner relationship. The hazard is that the owner (the government) would have to be trusted by the readers, or no one would bother reading these publications. A government 'house organ' would likely be viewed skeptically if the federal government can withdraw or prohibit publications at will. Banning federal scientists from submitting to journals the administration doesn't like does not cleanse the literature of industry influence — it deepens those ties. And while government-run journals might one day exist, they won't arrive fully baked, credible, or conflict-free. Better to invest in the proven mechanisms of editorial independence, enhanced peer review, and clearer disclosure than in a rushed, state-controlled alternative destined to struggle for trust and impact. If RFK Jr wants a better list of reforms, here's what I suggest: Take on predatory publishers and their fake journals, fake authors, and fabricated institutions and references — a threat that existed even before generative chat powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Take aim at rapacious mainstream publishers, whose excess profit margins and subscription price gouging represent a financial drain on researchers, readers, and academic libraries. Crack down on excessively large author fees to have an article considered/reviewed/published. Promote the publication of reproducibility studies. Raise the alarm about the use of AI in peer view and the creation of manuscripts — including the data in them. These steps aren't as sexy as proclaiming publishing bans for government scientist or launching new journals on whose mastheads you can put your own name. But they have the virtues of solving real problems and not making existing problems worse — which, as a physician, seems like something I've heard before somewhere …


Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Musk Is the $350 Billion Rocket Man Who Fell to Earth
The popcorn emoji is out in force as the world's richest person feuds with its most powerful leader. Even Thierry Breton, the European regulator who was a frequent target of Elon Musk's ire, is at it. Still, as entertaining as the billionaire's spat with Donald Trump may be, it also carries costly lessons for a $630 billion space economy dominated by Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. — such is the danger of codependence between de facto monopolies and increasingly protectionist states. This danger wasn't high on the agenda at the peak of Trump's bromance with Musk, when the president-elect described SpaceX's reusable rocket revolution in the way a Renaissance monarch might have praised a successful colonial expedition — with a mix of national pride, geopolitical influence and financial potential: ' I called Elon. I said, 'Elon, was that [landing maneuver] you?' He said, 'Yes, it was.' I said, '...Can Russia do it?' 'No.' 'Can China do it?' 'No.' 'Can the United States do it, other than you?' 'No, nobody can do that.' 'That's why I love you, Elon.''