New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Domestication Squished Dogs’ Heads and Obscured Their Emotions

Pugs, Boston terriers, bulldogs and boxers—dogs with less wolflike facial features are worse at conveying their feelings

Close up of a pug with its tongue out

Michael Svoboda/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Centuries of breeding to make our canine companions suit human aesthetics have left them less able to communicate through facial expressions than their wolf ancestors were, new research shows.

Dogs with exaggerated physical traits, such as floppy ears and the short, squashed muzzles of pugs and Boston terriers, fared worst at expressing themselves with their faces alone, according to a study in Scientific Reports. Long fur and prominent flews (the loose upper lip seen in bulldogs and boxers) also obscured dogs’ expressions. In general, the less wolflike a dog’s facial features, the weaker its ability to express emotion, says study lead author Elana R. Hobkirk, a canine behavioral ecologist at Durham University in England.

To measure how well a canine face reveals the animal’s emotions, Hobkirk logged the subtle facial movements of captive wolves and kenneled rescue dogs while they were interacting with one another or with humans and as they responded to various stimuli; a squeaking sound with no visible toy, for example, elicited curiosity. By looking at recordings of the canines’ reactions, Hobkirk identified nine emotions (such as anxiety, curiosity, happiness and surprise) and then tested how well they could be detected based on only facial-movement data, excluding barks and body language.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers found that facial movements revealed domestic dogs’ emotions about two thirds of the time. Their model struggled, however, with breeds that look less like wolves, which accounted for nearly all of the incorrect predictions. (Wolves’ expressions were accurately interpreted three quarters of the time.) Domestic dogs’ features can prevent them from expressing cues with their ears and minimize their ability to bare their teeth. Fear was most often confused for other emotions, especially happiness—a particular concern for people who are less familiar with dogs. If you misinterpret a dog’s face when approaching it, “you could get bitten,” Hobkirk says.

“We don’t yet have comprehensive knowledge about how dogs may use those expressions they produce differently than wolves,” says canine researcher Annika Bremhorst of the University of Bern, who hopes to see further research on this topic. The study notes that dogs with impaired facial expression appear to compensate by using communication cues such as barking to convey emotion.

Lori Youmshajekian is a science journalist who reports on consumer health, environmental issues and scientific misconduct. She holds a master’s degree in science journalism from New York University and has written for National Geographic, Wired and Retraction Watch, among other outlets.

More by Lori Youmshajekian
Scientific American Magazine Vol 331 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Puppy Eyes” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 331 No. 2 (), p. 20
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican092024-3X8c3gRvI0y44jF74U1JrN

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe