Petter Mark, Musolino Evanya, Roberts William A, Cole Mark
Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1, Canada.
Behav Processes. 2009 Oct;82(2):109-18. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.07.002.
In a series of experiments, dogs were allowed to choose between two containers, one of which contained a food reward. In Experiments 1 and 2, a cooperative human tester pointed to the baited container on half the trials, and a deceptive human tester pointed to the empty container on the other half of the trials. Dogs learned to approach the cooperator more often than the deceiver. Inanimate cues (black and white boxes) were used as the "cooperator" and "deceiver" in Experiment 3. As was the case in Experiments 1 and 2, the dogs learned to approach the "cooperator" box more often than the "deceiver" box. Thus, the experiments indicate that dogs are sensitive to the correlation between cues and their outcomes but offer no support for the idea that dogs understand human intentionality.
在一系列实验中，让狗在两个容器之间进行选择，其中一个容器装有食物奖励。在实验1和实验2中，一个合作的人类测试者在一半的试验中指向装有诱饵的容器，而一个欺骗性的人类测试者在另一半试验中指向空容器。狗学会了更多地接近合作者而不是欺骗者。在实验3中，无生命线索（黑白盒子）被用作“合作者”和“欺骗者”。与实验1和实验2的情况一样，狗学会了更多地接近“合作者”盒子而不是“欺骗者”盒子。因此，这些实验表明狗对线索与其结果之间的相关性很敏感，但并不支持狗理解人类意图这一观点。
