What Role Does Gender Play in Human-Pet Dog Communications

ANZ501 Introduction to Anthrozoology
Vivian Zottola-Gefke
​​Canisius College
Fall Semester 2018
​
Abstract

Clear communication between conspecifics is necessary to manage expectations, support cohabitation and of course for survival of the species.  Humans exchange information with one another through the use of verbal and written language, technology, visual gestures, facial expressions, and even pheromones. Dogs share information with one another using their own unique sensory perceptions of olfaction, audition, vocalization, visual posturing, and physical investigation (Siniscalchi, d’Ingeo, Minunno, Quaranta, 2018). When humans and dogs cohabitate each species in the relationship relies on their own umwelt, their unique perceptual abilities to make sense of their environment and the other creatures within it. When one species’ behavior is misunderstood by the other, a breakdown in expectations and communication ensues leading to feelings of frustration.  If not remedied, the relationship is strained and more often than not the dog is relinquished to a shelter, privately re-homed or euthanized.

This paper explores interspecies communication between humans and dogs in a western society and, in particular, it focuses on the role gender plays when people communicate with their dogs.  I review empirical evidence investigating differences in human communication styles with dogs, receptivity to dog emotions, underlying biological differences and early experience to animals. Understanding differences in gender-based communication styles may have useful applications to improve adoption matching, reduce the risk of recidivism in shelters, and provide successful strategies when designing behavior modification training plans to resolve human-pet dog challenges.

Literature Review

Engaging with Dogs

Dogs use posturing and vocalization to communicate their wants and needs to humans and the onus is on the dog owner/guardian to decipher and interpret presenting behaviors. Two recent studies demonstrate  women dog owners were more adept at evaluating distress in dogs regardless if the dog was theirs or not.  In order to understand dogs’ attachment styles with humans and differences in how women and  men dog owners engage with their dogs, researchers adapted the Ainsworth Strange Situation test substituting children with pet dogs (Prato-Previde, Custance, Spiezio,Sabatini, 2003). The Strange Situation test was designed by Mary Ainsworth in the 1970’s to determine attachment styles between caregivers and children. The child-care giver attachment occurs within the first year of a child’s life. Attachment styles include secure, insecure, and ambivalent avoidant attachment where the secure attachment is considered the most stable form of relationship (Bretherton, 1992).

When evaluating dogs for attachment styles, researchers staged a room with the dog, their owner and a stranger. Two out of eight events were analyzed where the dog was alone and then reunited with their owner. Researchers found no difference in how both women and men physically engaged with their dogs however, from a vocal perspective, women spent more time talking and uttering sounds then men while engaging with their dogs. “Gender differences in verbal behavior were confirmed by the analysis of utterances” (Prato-Previde, Fallani, Valsecchi, 2004, p. 69). Dog directed baby-talk also known as “motherese” (p.69) is thought to be communicating emotionally with children (Prato-Previde, et al. 2004).   

Determining emotions through facial gestures and body language is another important consideration when engaging with non verbal individuals such as our pet dogs.  Schiermer, Seow, Penney (2013) evaluated the ability of women and men dog owners to process and understand the meaning of emotions through facial gestures in human infants and dogs.  Half the subjects were experienced dog owners and half were not. Photos of common facial expressions in human infants and dogs were taken ranging from happy to sad.  While both men and women dog owners were capable of recognizing differences between positive and negative changes in the facial behaviors of human infants and dogs, the rate at which women dog owners were able to discern the differences was much faster than men dog owners. Another notable difference was the non-experienced dog owner detected emotions to the same degree as experienced dog owners suggesting there are evolutionary and biological differences at play between women and men with respect to longer vocal engagements and faster facial emotional recognition.

Biological Differences

Biological differences between men and women including functions of hormones and neuropeptides such as oxytocin and vasopression have been investigated and thought to promote pro social behaviors in females. These same pro social behaviors are directed to pet dogs (Prato-Previde et al. 2006, Shiemer et al. 2013). A study evaluating interactions between humans and their dogs after coming home from a long day at work measured changes in the oxytocin levels. Researchers found that when interacting with dogs women experienced an increase in plasma oxytocin levels while men did not (Beetz, Uvanas-Moberg, Julius, Kotrschal, 2012).  Another study compared maternal-child and human-pet relationships using fMRI tests to evaluate overlapping similarities in brain activity. While the research did not demonstrate a gender difference since only child bearing females were subjects of the study, it did demonstrate when caring for dogs human brain patterns are similar to when they are caring for their children. Brain regions thought to be involved in the maintenance of social bonding with humans were activated with dogs. This study demonstrated there are underlying biological underpinnings for social behaviors with dogs for child bearing women. The study did not extend to evaluating men. Regions of the brain that were activated include emotions, reward, affiliation, visual processing and social cognition (Stoeckel , Palley, Gollub, Niemi, Evins, 2014).               
 
Anthropomorphism, Identity, and Environmental Upbringing

Anthropomorphism is another consideration of differences between women and men and their dogs. When dog owner’s relations between perceived social support, anthropomorphism and stress were studied, researchers found “significantly more anthropomorphic behavior was reported by dog owners who were female, were neither married nor living in a common-law relationship” (Antonacopoulos and Pychyl, 2008, p.147).

Identity construction in humans seems to consciously or unconsciously play a part in what type of dog breed a person acquires and their attitudes toward the dog (Ramierez, 2006). Men and women may value their relationships with dogs differently. In a study based on interviews investigating gender ownership of dogs and the relationship with gender identity, men viewed their roles with dogs as confidents, “friends, exercise partners and coaches for their dogs” (p.385) while women were “emphasize the caretaker role” (p.385). 

How we communicate and engage with animals and in particular dogs is affected by upbringing and shaped by access and time spent with animals in nature. Access to nature and early childhood experience with animals is another consideration  in how we relate with animals (Beck and Katcher, 2003). Some young children may have been raised without ever having had exposure to a pet animal in their household.  Or, if a child was exposed to pet animals including a dog or cat, the child may not have been the primary caretaker since parents are often accountable for family pets.  Researchers studying the human-animal bond have suggested caring for animals offers children in particular boys the opportunity to practice and develop nurturing qualities with another individual (Beck and Katcher 2003). Early exposure to animals including pet dogs and cats allow children to observe a different species from a close distance, practice responsible caretaking and develop nurturing qualities that may transfer to adulthood.  As described by Melson (2003) close experiences with animals may be an “essential precondition to exploring their functions for socioemotional development.”
 
Conclusion

Successful human-dog relationships rely on clear communication. When humans make the choice to acquire and live with dogs as companions or pets, the onus is on them to fulfill their basic needs including the ability and freedom to make better choices.  Once thought a luxury dog training is in fact a necessity required to establish some type of continuity and understanding between two different species living together. As more dogs are embraced as family members the need for early and continued education about the world of the dog is a necessity for an enduring, successful and safe relationship.
Considering dog training a means of communication, the way we choose to train our dogs reflects our attitudes and view of our relationship with our dogs.  Some dog owners choose to formally train their dogs while others do not. Some use dominance theory and punitive methods while others choose kinder strategies.  Learning basic operant conditioning training using positive reinforcement is ideal because it helps humans manage their dogs in a force free manner.  This training offers clear communication and helps to manage expectations for both human and dog. However body mechanics is not enough.  Educating dog owners on softer skills would be helpful.  Understanding the differences between species through knowledge in canine ethology, psychological, physiological and social development will help dog owners improve their ability to tolerate differences.
​
Awareness of differences between men and women in how we communicate and engage with dogs allows us the opportunity to develop better questions and matching tools when re-homing shelter dogs.  It also allows for the development of sensitivity training and preventative safety training dog owners to reduce the likelihood of behavior challenges from developing. The average dog owner is not aware about fundamental differences in how canines and humans communicate.  Public awareness campaigns promoting fundamental differences and encouraging behavior assessment training may help provide clear communication about expectations, lower the risk of surrendered dogs to shelters and improve the likelihood of maintaining the human dog bond for life.

References
​
Antonacopoulos, N. M. D., & Pychyl, T. A. (2008). An examination of the relations between social support, anthropomorphism and stress among dog owners. Anthrozoös, 21(2), 139-152.

Association of Professional Dog Trainers, Retrieved from doi: https://apdt.com/

Beck, A.M. & Katcher, A.H. (2003), Future direction in human-animal bond research. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 79-93

Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: the possible role of oxytocin. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 234.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775.

Council of Certified Professional Dog Trainers, Retrieved December 2018 from doi: http://www.ccpdt.org/

Gabrielsen, A. M. (2017). Training technologies. Science, gender and dogs in the age of positive dog training. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 5(1), 5-16.

Greenebaum, J. B. (2010). Training dogs and training humans: Symbolic interaction and dog training. Anthrozoös, 23(2), 129-141.

International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, Retrieved 2018 from, doi: https://m.iaabc.org/

Jeannin, S., Gilbert, C., & Leboucher, G. (2017). Effect of interaction type on the characteristics of pet-directed speech in female dog owners. Animal Cognition, 20(3), 499-509.

Kertes, D. A., Hall, N., & Bhatt, S. S. (2018). Children’s relationship with their pet dogs and oxtr genotype predict child–pet interaction in an experimental setting. Frontiers in psychology, 9.

Melson, G.F. (2003). Child development and the human-companion animal bond. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 31-39.

Merola, I., Prato-Previde, E., Lazzaroni, M., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2014). Dogs’ comprehension of referential emotional expressions: familiar people and familiar emotions are easier. Animal cognition, 17(2), 373-385.

Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D. M., Spiezio, C., & Sabatini, F. (2003). Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth's strange situation. Behaviour, 140(2), 225-254.

Prato‐Previde, E., Fallani, G., & Valsecchi, P. (2006). Gender differences in owners interacting with pet dogs: an observational study. Ethology, 112(1), 64-73.

Ramirez, M. (2006). “My dog's just like me”: dog ownership as a gender display. Symbolic Interaction, 29(3), 373-391.

Schirmer, A., Seow, C. S., & Penney, T. B. (2013). Humans process dog and human facial affect in similar ways. PLoS One, 8(9)

Siniscalchi, M., d’Ingeo, S., Minunno, M., & Quaranta, A. (2018). Communication in dogs. Animals, 8(8), 131.
​
Stoeckel, L. E., Palley, L. S., Gollub, R. L., Niemi, S. M., & Evins, A. E. (2014). Patterns of brain activation when mothers view their own child and dog: an fMRI study. PLoS One, 9(10)