New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Your Dog Wants Your Food

Dogs recognize and respond to human social signals to conclude that your food is more desirable than theirs. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Does your puppy turn his nose up at his own chow—because he wants some of whatever it is that you’re having? A new study finds that, when it comes to food, dogs recognize human social signals about what's good. The work is in the journal Public Library of Science ONE. [Sarah Marshall-Pescin et al., "Do Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) Make Counterproductive Choices Because They Are Sensitive to Human Ostensive Cues?"]

Researchers let pet dogs choose between two plates, one with a single piece of food and the other with six pieces. Unsurprisingly, the animals generally went for the larger portion. But when a human being showed a clear liking for the smaller plate, the canines likewise went for the skimpier choice. The dogs apparently recognized and responded to the humans' social cues.

And not all cues were equally effective. When the human approached but did not touch the smaller portion, dogs ignored the attention-drawing gesture. For a social signal to influence behavior, it had to demonstrate intention. And the most effective cues also involved communication, such as looking from the food to the dog and back while talking encouragingly. For dogs, choosing a bite may depend on another's bark.


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.


—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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