logo
Think You Understand Your Dog? Think Again.

Think You Understand Your Dog? Think Again.

New York Times10-03-2025
Dogs can't talk, but their body language speaks volumes. Many dogs will bow when they want to play, for instance, or lick their lips and avert their gaze when nervous or afraid.
But people aren't always good at interpreting such cues — or even noticing them, a new study suggests.
In the study, the researchers presented people with videos of a dog reacting to positive and negative stimuli, including a leash, a treat, a vacuum cleaner and a scolding. When asked to assess the dog's emotions, viewers seemed to pay more attention to the situational cues than the dog's actual behavior, even when the videos had been edited to be deliberately misleading. (In one video, for instance, a dog that appeared to be reacting to the sight of his leash had actually been shown a vacuum cleaner by his owner.)
'When it comes to just perceiving dog emotions, we think we know what's happening, but we're actually subconsciously relying on a lot of other factors,' said Holly Molinaro, who is a doctoral student at Arizona State University and the first author of the new paper, which was published on Monday in the journal Anthrozoös.
That bias could mislead owners about their dogs' well-being, Ms. Molinaro said. People who want to be attentive to their dog's experiences and emotions need to 'take a second or two to actually focus on the dog rather than everything else that's going on,' she said.
The idea for the study was born in 2021, when Ms. Molinaro was just beginning her doctoral work in canine emotions but the Covid-19 pandemic had sharply limited her ability to do in-person research.
She was inspired by studies that explore how context clues affect people's perceptions of others' emotions. She was also inspired by a distinctly pandemic-era technology: Zoom. The video conferencing software has a feature that blurs out workers' backgrounds. Ms Molinaro and her adviser, Clive Wynne — a canine-behavior expert at Arizona State — began to wonder if they could do something similar, creating videos that allowed people to see a dog's behavior without seeing what was unfolding around it.
And so, while visiting her parents in Connecticut, Ms. Molinaro began recording videos of her family dog, Oliver, a 14-year-old pointer-beagle mix, interacting with her father. In some of the videos, Ms. Molinaro's father did things that Oliver was likely to respond to positively, such as show him his leash or a toy. In others, he did things that were likely to elicit more negative reactions, such as gently scold Oliver or present him with Ms. Molinaro's cat, Saffron. ('He was not a fan,' she said.)
Then, after a crash course in video editing, Ms. Molinaro made versions of each video that removed all of the situational context, leaving footage of Oliver, alone, on a black background.
The researchers asked hundreds of undergraduates to watch both sets of videos and assess Oliver's emotional state in each clip. When the subjects evaluated the original videos, they rated Oliver's emotions as more positive in the positive scenarios than in the negative ones. But when the context was removed, they rated Oliver's emotions as equally positive in both types of situations.
Then, the scientists took things a step further by splicing together footage from different situations — showing, for instance, Ms. Molinaro's father presenting a vacuum alongside footage of Oliver's response to seeing his leash.
Viewers seemed to be swayed more by the context than by Oliver's behavior. When Ms. Molinaro's father was depicted doing something positive, subjects judged Oliver's emotions to be positive, even if he had been filmed reacting to something negative.
'There's no evidence at all that people actually see the dog,' Dr. Wynne said. 'They seem to have a sort of a big blind spot around the dog himself.'
The study has limitations, including that it was based on the behavior of just a single dog. People might also perform better when asked to evaluate the emotions of their own dogs, Dr. Wynne said, and probably would have noticed signs of intense terror or trauma. (The scientists did not subject Oliver to any extremely negative experiences.)
Still, he hoped that the study would be a wake-up call for pet owners. 'I'm taking it to heart in my own life,' said Dr. Wynne, who recently adopted a retired racing greyhound.
'I'm making it a project to learn how she expresses herself,' he added. 'Because if I know what makes her happy and unhappy, well, then I can guide her life toward greater happiness.'
Sadly, Oliver did not live long enough to see the study published. 'But it's sweet that he's memorialized in this research,' Ms. Molinaro said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Scientists issue alarming warning over worsening crisis that could impact billions of people: 'We need immediate action'
Scientists issue alarming warning over worsening crisis that could impact billions of people: 'We need immediate action'

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Scientists issue alarming warning over worsening crisis that could impact billions of people: 'We need immediate action'

Scientists issue alarming warning over worsening crisis that could impact billions of people: 'We need immediate action' A new global water crisis is unfolding as groundwater depletion accelerates worldwide, fueled not just by spiking global temperatures but also by pulling freshwater out from the ground faster than it can be naturally replenished. According to a recent article by The Pillar, continents are losing groundwater at a pace that threatens water supplies and food security — and, surprisingly, causing sea levels to rise. What's happening? Every year, an area equivalent to twice the size of California dries out, creating mega-drying regions under dry extremes. The study by researchers at Arizona State University estimates that about 68% of the loss in terrestrial water storage is due to groundwater depletion. Moreover, it estimates that three-quarters of the world's population live in areas that have been losing freshwater. Groundwater loss is now adding more freshwater to the oceans than melting glaciers. This means continental drying is contributing more to sea level rise than glaciers and ice caps. Why is groundwater depletion concerning? Groundwater is a natural water reserve built up over thousands of years. When it's drained too fast because of wasteful water use, it's unlikely to be replenished within a lifetime. Extreme weather has always existed, but rising temperatures are supercharging many events and risks. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, groundwater makes up approximately 30% of the Earth's freshwater. Once it's gone, billions of people will be affected. Moreover, rising sea levels also threaten coastal communities. It increases the risk of flooding, infrastructure damage, and destruction of ecosystems. Even a slight increase in sea levels can make storm surges more dangerous. What's being done about the rapid groundwater loss? "This is an 'all-hands-on-deck' moment — we need immediate action on global water security," lead researcher Jay Famiglietti told ASU News. Institutions are already working together to promote sustainable water resource management. Multilateral development banks, including the World Bank Group, are financing initiatives such as flood management, irrigation, and climate-resilient infrastructure. How concerned are you about the plastic waste in our oceans? Extremely I'm pretty concerned A little Not much Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Individuals can help by exploring important environmental issues and talking about them with family and friends. Actions like conserving water, switching to drought-tolerant landscaping, and using water-efficient appliances may also help reduce resource wastage. As Earth continues to warm, managing water more wisely will be critical — not just for local communities but for the entire planet's future. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword

NIH cancels mRNA vaccine contracts, citing lack of public trust
NIH cancels mRNA vaccine contracts, citing lack of public trust

The Hill

timea day ago

  • The Hill

NIH cancels mRNA vaccine contracts, citing lack of public trust

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya claims the federal government recently cancelled millions of dollars' worth of mRNA research contracts because the general public does not trust the technology. Bhattacharya explained the reason behind the abrupt contract cancellations, first, during an episode of Republican political strategist Steve Bannon's podcast 'War Room' last week and again in an opinion piece recently published in The Washington Post. In the article, Bhattacharya called the mRNA platform a 'promising technology' and acknowledged that it may lead to breakthroughs in treatment for diseases like cancer. 'But as a vaccine intended for broad public use, especially during a public health emergency, the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust,' he wrote. 'No matter how elegant the science, a platform that lacks credibility among the people it seeks to protect cannot fulfill its public health mission.' Bhattacharya's explanation for the administration's pivot away from mRNA technology differs from that of his boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy announced last week the agency would wind down its mRNA vaccine development activities under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and cancel $500 million worth of contracts related to the technology. He said that mRNA technologies funded during the pandemic failed to meet current scientific standards and that the federal government would shift its focus to whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms. Bhattacharya expressed concern in the article about mRNA vaccines' ability to direct human cells to produce spike proteins to trigger an immune response. He argues the scientific community does not have a clear understanding of where mRNA product stays in the body, for how long, and whether other proteins are created in the process. Scott Hensley, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine, told STAT that these are also issues with vaccines that use live but weakened viruses like the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, which federal health agencies have deemed safe and effective. 'This is why we complete human clinical studies before vaccines are widely used in humans,' he told the outlet. 'The mRNA and live attenuated vaccine platforms have both proven to be safe and effective in clinical trials.' He blamed public distrust in mRNA on the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandates during the pandemic. Bhattacharya expressed concern in the article about mRNA vaccines' ability to direct human cells to produce spike proteins to trigger an immune response. He argues the scientific community does not have a clear understanding of where the mRNA product stays in the body, for how long, and whether other proteins are created in the process. 'Science isn't propaganda,' he wrote. 'It's humility. And when public health officials stopped communicating with humility, we lost much of the public, an absolute necessity for any vaccine platform.'

New study highlights inconsistencies in defining long COVID
New study highlights inconsistencies in defining long COVID

UPI

timea day ago

  • UPI

New study highlights inconsistencies in defining long COVID

The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, a new study says. File Photo by Shou Sheng/EPA Do you suspect you have long COVID, but aren't sure? The answer you get will largely hinge on whom you ask, a new study says. The medical field still lacks a clear answer as to what constitutes long COVID, despite hundreds of published studies and millions of sufferers worldwide, researchers reported Tuesday in JAMA Network Open. The definition of long COVID varies so widely that the percentage of people identified as having the ailment can differ dramatically, making it harder to properly diagnose and treat patients, researchers said. "The findings highlight the need for a standard definition for long COVID," lead researcher Lauren Wisk, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, said in a news release. A number of major organizations like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have advanced their own definitions for long COVID, but none has stuck and all feature some flaws, researchers said in background notes. For example, the National Academies' definition, released in 2024, is extremely broad and does not require lab confirmation that a person actually had an initial COVID-19 infection, researchers said. For the study, researchers applied five published long COVID definitions from previous studies to a group of more than 4,500 COVID patients being tracked as part of an ongoing research project. The prior studies took place in the U.S., U.K., Netherlands, Sweden and Puerto Rico. The five definitions differed by symptom duration, ranging from four weeks to six months, researchers said. The definition also varied by the number of potential symptoms, from nine to as many as 44. The percentage of patients with long COVID varied from 15% to 42%, depending on which definition had been used, results showed. These differences can lead doctors to miss legitimate long COVID cases while misdiagnosing others who actually don't have the syndrome, said senior researcher Dr. Joann Elmore, a professor at David Geffen School of Medicine. "Without a shared definition, we risk mislabeling patients and misguiding care," she said in a news release. "This is more than an academic debate -- it affects real people." These differences are also hampering medicine's ability to figure out long COVID, Wisk said. "If every study on long COVID uses a different definition for identifying who has it, the scientific conclusions become harder to compare across studies and may lead to delays in our understanding of it," she said. "In the absence of an objective measure, like a blood test, or a uniform standard for measuring long COVID, researchers and clinicians will need to decide which definition is best suited for their scientific question and be more transparent about the potential limitations of using a more versus less restrictive definition," Wisk added. More information The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more on long COVID. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store