Are dogs capable of deception?

spiritdogs

 Just thought I'd toss a little food for thought out there in view of recent discussions of theory of mind.  Anyone have any scientific or anecdotal evidence of this?

Anecdotal:

 Gaia used to like to have a particular spot on the bed.  If that spot was taken by either myself or by Xerxes, she'd run out to the door and alarm bark.  This would get Xerxes and I to go out to see what the matter was.  When we'd go check it out, she'd run in and get into her spot. 
 

Also, deception is part of dog play.

 Any of you seen dogs stalk each other?  Usually the stalked dog will pretend not to notice the stalker.  This enables the stalker to continue the hunt in the usual manner.  At the last moment the stalked dog breaks into a run after "noticing" that he/she is being stalked.

 
Without this type of deception, learning to hunt would be much less fun.  JMO.
 

Great example!

Deception is part of every predator's bag-o-tricks to catch their prey. Deception is also part of every prey animal's bag-o-tricks to keep from being caught.

Camouflage, is a tactic used by both predator and prey.

Lee Charles Kelley

It's interesting to see how your mind tends to go automatically to the idea that the dog is doing something deliberately.

Kim_MacMillan

Who said it was automatic? Most of the conclusions I come to occur after quite a period of critical thinking and analyzing. I rarely come to "automatic" thoughts on most things I develop ideas about.

Sorry, that's just my perception. I have no idea what your thought process is (if any). I'm sure you must think I automatically go straight to an energetic explanation, which may be true, but only in cases where I've seen a specific behavior before, or have had someone ask me how such-and-such a behavior, like your pit bull example, and your submissive female's behavior, could NOT be the result of deliberate deception. 

One instance that comes to mind tonight (due to a similar case posted by someone else here) was of a dog who wanted a toy from another dog, and learned that if she ran to the front door and barked, the other dog would follow her and begin barking too. This enabled her to return to the other room and grab the toy she desired. The person who posed this question to me was quite certain that her dog did this as a deliberate deception, and for a while I was stumped and thought she might be right. Then an alternative explanation came to me, in which the dog had "learned" the behavior accidentally at a moment of strong desire for the toy when there was also a noise at the front door. She ran to the door to bark at the noise, just as many dogs would. The other dog, the one who had the toy, dropped it and came running too, but she was more dedicated to the barking than the first dog. So she (the first dog), remembering the thing that had the highest level of attraction for her at that specific moment, the toy, went back and "stole" it. The next time she was in that same state of desire she remembered the behavior which had gotten her what she wanted, and felt pulled back to barking at the door as a means of getting the toy. It was pure desire and emotional memory, no intent to deceive or (as the owner had proposed) to think logically: if I do A then Lassie will do A also, I can steal the toy.

This explanation was pure supposition on my part, but when I suggested it to the owner of these two dogs she admitted that her second dog was more dedicated to barking at noises near the door, and that since I had mentioned it, she remembered that had been a time when almost exactly what I suggested had happened. I'm not saying that this is the case with the most recent mentioning of this behavior here tonight. I'm just saying there's a possible alternative explanation that doesn't require higher level dognition. And if we're to follow Morgan's canon, that should be the explanation we stick with until we have some tangible proof that some higher faculty of consciousness was involved. 

Lee Charles Kelley

However, I can see that if one were to stick in some way to the "submissive" model of pack behavior then one might confuse what the female does as a deliberate ploy. I don't see it that way.

Kim_MacMillan

That's good, as if you knew much of anything about me, the first thing you would come to know, is that I don't see things that way either.

I didn't say you specifically. Read my statement again. I deliberately used the word "one" rather than "you" to denote that what I was saying wasn't directed at you, Kim. It was a general statement.

 

Lee Charles Kelley

But either way it can still be explained satisfactorily as a matter of emotional energy flow, not deliberate deception, which would require that the dog have a theory of mind.

Kim_MacMillan

it can be explained that way, although I wouldn't personally call it satisfactorily.

Why not? It's simpler. It explains all aspects of the behavior. And it fits what we know from all sorts of disciplines to be true. There is absolutely no evidence that dogs have a third-level ToM. It's still debatable whether chimps even have the first-level. I'm not opposed to the idea of dogs being smarter than chimps in some ways, but to go from an iffy first-level ToM in chimps to a full-blown awareness of another's thought processes, ideas, concepts, etc., in dogs is, sorry, but to me it's just laughable. Where's the proof? Any kind of proof?

Kim_MacMillan

I would actually think of deception and learning as much more satisfactory based upon my knowledge and experience. But that's the joy of having a variety of theories about phenomena.

What knowledge? What experience? You have a maddening way of closing off conversations by never getting specific. (Perhaps some people find my droning on about specifics to be just as maddening.)

And I never meant to imply that learning isn't part of the equation. It pretty much has to be. So I'm sorry if you got that impression. But if you ask me, animals learn through something other than positive reinforcement (though it's a very similar process) and/or making mental associations (though, again, it's very similar, only it takes place on an emotional, not a mental level). 

Lee Charles Kelley

Also, you mention "quite a bit of literature in journals" on this topic. I've seen that too.

Kim_MacMillan

Really, you know precisely which literature I'm talking about when I haven't even mentioned specific sources?

Exactly. You made a general statement. So did I. You said there's literature about deception in animals. You didn't mention sources, but that doesn't automatically preclude me from having seen or read some literature on the same topic (though I'd call it folklore). You seem determined to create arguments over every little thing I say, Kim. Don't get me wrong. I love getting counterarguments on specifics. (I feel like there's been a paucity of any real counterarguments to my positions on this board so far.) But it seems pointless to make these niggling personal comments...

Lee Charles Kelley

Even just looking at your deceptive fiend of a female through the lens of emergence theory, you'd see (perhaps, if you were open to seeing) that there's no deception going on.

Kim_MacMillan

It's not that I'm not open to it, I just don't agree with it as much as I agree with some of the other theories that are currently in existance today. Certainly there are some components to it that makes sense, and others that don't seem to fit. That's the joy of theories, there is no "one-theory-fits-all" in most of the cognition world. Usually all of the theories combined come to make the most accurate portrayal of what we currently know things to be like. I'm not sure what makes you think I haven't looked at it from an interdisciplinary standpoint. Just because I don't jump on it the second I see it doesn't mean I haven't read it, interpreted it, thought about it, and formed my own ideas about its strengths and weaknesses as a theory. There's a difference between "being open to seeing" something and "avidly supporting" something. If you come to get to know me over time, I think you'll come to realize that I'm quite open-minded about things. :-)

Well, I have to confess I am surprised to hear that. And glad in a way, too. I can understand someone having time constraints, and more importantly a distaste for taking the time to develop solid counterarguments where you may think you have little hope of convincing the other person. But frankly, if you have any real counterarguments to specifics, I'd be glad to hear them. I really haven't seen any so far. And frankly, I'm a bit mystified how anyone who's studied self-organizing systems would continue to confer thought processes where none are necessary.

But maybe that's just me... 

Xerxes

Also, deception is part of dog play.

 Any of you seen dogs stalk each other?  Usually the stalked dog will pretend not to notice the stalker.

You may have inferred a form of pretense that isn't really there. Breaking off eye contact is not the same thing is pretending not to notice being stalked. Prey animals, like bison, often do the same thing when wolves are trying to get them to run. Are they pretending not to notice that the wolves are there, or are they not making eye contact for another reason?

Turid Rugaas says that breaking eye contact is a sign of nervousness, so that would be a simpler explanation than that there's some richly-developed make-believe world taking place in the dog's head.

Just another (simpler) way of looking at this behavior.

LCK 

Oh, I think Willow is very capable of deception.  I don't normally use that particular word when I describe it though.  The little weasle is usually what I use, LOL.

For example, dog on couch when she shouldn't be.  I'll act super duper cute, cute beyond words even though I could care less about the attention you are giving me.  I just don't want to move. 

Is that deception???

I don't think dogs deliberately deceive, but I do think they are capable of unconscious deception. I'm going to put myself out there and say I don't think it's particularly evolutionarily adaptive for deliberate deception to be present in a group of social animals (intraspecific deception, that is). Social animals spend most of their time displaying honest signals to one another so that everyone knows where everyone else stands, dangerous aggression is avoided, and co operative behaviours can operate most efficiently.

Having said that, I'm sure someone will find an example of deliberate deception in a social animal. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of it in some social animals, such as chimps, who not only have a very complex social system, but a very violent one that can result in deaths. However, I would be surprised to hear of it in, say, bonobos who are every bit as smart and complex as your average chimp, but not aggressive at all.

Oh, I just thought of something! White-winged Choughs, an Australian bird that breeds co operatively due to food constraints in the environment (and phylogeny).... sometimes the younger birds in the group who aren't as good at foraging will pretend to feed the babies. They take food to the nest, then make like they're feeding the babies, but quickly gobble the food themselves. However, if choughs get caught cheating, they get beaten up by the rest of the group, and I guess they get beaten up if they aren't feeding the babies as well. Choughs are also known to steal fledglings away from other groups and raise them as slaves, making them feed their own babies. These stolen fledlings never get to breed and spend their lives feeding babies not related to them. I'm pretty sure none of the choughs know, though! Choughs have a fascinatingly complex social system, but they are not very bright birds. You think they're smart because of the amazing things that go on in their everyday lives, but then you get them walking into mist nets repeatedly and you realise they're not the brightest crayons in the box. Even a fairy-wren learns where a net is after getting caught, or even witnessing another fairy-wren getting caught.

in my opinion absolutely.  I have seen my girl trash my belongings and shrug as if I had left them that way!! Another time Jasmine was sitting with a stolen sack from a fast food restarant on her paws and when caught looked at her puppy as if to say I took this away from the brat to rescue it for you....

Bonita of Bwana

Lee Charles Kelley

You may have inferred a form of pretense that isn't really there. Breaking off eye contact is not the same thing is pretending not to notice being stalked. Prey animals, like bison, often do the same thing when wolves are trying to get them to run. Are they pretending not to notice that the wolves are there, or are they not making eye contact for another reason?

You may be inferring something that isn't there at all.  

Lee Charles Kelley

Turid Rugaas says that breaking eye contact is a sign of nervousness,

Nervousness?  Ever seen a young wolf stalk an older wolf?  So the older wolf is nervous from being stalked by a pup?  That makes zero sense. 

Lee Charles Kelley

Just another (simpler) way of looking at this behavior.

Actually your simpler way, is more complicated, as it requires the adult dog to develop a prey animal type response mechanism rather than the tried an true "fight or flight" mechanism which serves predators very well.

Not dogs, but birds are well-known to feign injuries to draw a predator away from a nest.

I think there are many levels of deceit in the animal world. The walking stick is a born deceiver. His very shape is a lie. Then there are fish and other animals whose color changes to adapt to their environment. But conscious, purposeful deceit (strategy) is what I think we're examining here and I think it does happen.

Mitchell (1986) has organized these varying situations into a hierarchy of four levels which allows the categorization of behaviour between those which have the effect of deceiving and those which have the intention to deceive.
...
[level 3] Animals acting in this way can be considered to be acting with intention because previously so doing has brought about a particular result without the animal actually having an explicit intent to deceive. For example a dog holding up a foot and whining which was effective in getting attention when the foot was sore, may repeat this behaviour when nothing is wrong with the result of getting petting and attention.
...
Level four deception occurs in situations when the sender corrects its actions to match the receiver's behaviour in such a way as to encourage desired acts or beliefs of a receiver. In other words, the sender is manipulating the receiver's understanding of a situation. It is at this level that intentional deception of the type most frequently attributed to adult humans occurs.

Source 

mine engage in what really appears to be deliberate deception. Fake alarm bark to get the bed. Hide and watch the other dog bury a bone, then sneak out and move it. Carefully wait until we aren't looking, then steal a sock out of the laundry.

Lee Charles Kelley

Then an alternative explanation came to me, in which the dog had "learned" the behavior accidentally at a moment of strong desire for the toy when there was also a noise at the front door.

Of course deception can be learned. In fact, I think most deception in humans is done by preliminary learning as well. Humans aren't borne knowing how to deceive until they experience it. Just because it is learned doesn't mean it isn't deception.

Deception is known to be both a conscious and unconscious event, depending on the type of deception. Things like mimicry are unconscious, where an organism has adapted over time to look like another, make the sound like another, act like another, etc. But deception as a general definition is simply to cause another to believe information that is not true, and usually involves distraction or concealment. So whether or not you want to say the dog barking at the door is conscious or unconscious, through learning or through emotional energy, it still fits the description perfectly for what deception defines.

Lee Charles Kelley

What knowledge? What experience? You have a maddening way of closing off conversations by never getting specific. (Perhaps some people find my droning on about specifics to be just as maddening.)

I'm not closing off conversations anywhere. How specific would you like? Do you want the full list of courses I've taken through my university education thus far? Would my grades allow you to better see just where I might have done better than other places? Really, my knowledge from both self-study and academia. My experience through, well, experience with many, many dogs, since (most literally) I have been born. I was borne into a house of dogs where the minimum number of dogs we had at any given time was 2-3, and right now the house contains 14, to give a small example. I've never gone more than three weeks in my entire life without dogs, and having worked through boarding kennels, and breeding programs, have experience a very wide diversity in dogs as well as large social groups of dogs. Does that help? Usually I don't identify my experience every time I talk about something as you assume that people will either know, or those who are newer will read past posts to learn a little bit about the members that they talk to.

Lee Charles Kelley

Exactly. You made a general statement. So did I. You said there's literature about deception in animals. You didn't mention sources, but that doesn't automatically preclude me from having seen or read some literature on the same topic (though I'd call it folklore).

It was general, and was intended to be. I could provide the sources, but unless you are directly linked to a university or subscribe to those journals, you won't be able to access the information anyhow. I posted a long list of studies involving higher-order cognitive abilities in dogs already, and you haven't responded at all to them. Why would I waste more time doing it again only for it to be ignored again? I do find it ironic that anything that doesn't fit your schema is called "folklore", whereas you cling to other science like glue. What ever happened to the statement where you "match your ideas to the science, rather than editing the science to match your ideas"? I'm the first person to criticize bad science when I see it, and I've spent the greater part of my past years analyzing studies critically, both good and bad, but I'm also the first person to acknowledge great science when it is done, and I have seen some great science done in terms of animal cognition.

Lee Charles Kelley

You seem determined to create arguments over every little thing I say, Kim. Don't get me wrong. I love getting counterarguments on specifics. (I feel like there's been a paucity of any real counterarguments to my positions on this board so far.) But it seems pointless to make these niggling personal comments...

I haven't made any personal comments. I simply was surprised that you seemed to pre-emptively know what I was talking about without having even mentioned specifics. I think it would be natural for most folks to be surprised.

Lee Charles Kelley

And frankly, I'm a bit mystified how anyone who's studied self-organizing systems would continue to confer thought processes where none are necessary.

You are only mystified, I think, because it doesn't fit your schema of 'how things are'. And I can understand why you feel that way, as we all have trouble understanding people who don't fit into our belief systems. I don't find it mystifying at all, and in fact I find it intriguing and amazing to learn just what brain functions other animals besides humans actually have. It's not about conferring them "where none are necessary", it's not even about necessity, it's about the fact that whether we humans want to "assign" them traits or not, science has been showing in all species just how complex they really are. Boy, the research in prairie dogs is simply astounding, if anybody has read up on it. And I mean astounding, as in far more complex than our canid friends. I'm not saying dogs are like little people, I'm completely a fan for understanding a dog as a dog, but their brains hold a lot of similarities to ours (and a lot of differences!), and I think it's not far-fetched as you think it is (again, it's simply due to differing experiential and educational backgrounds) to think that there are other animals in this world that have higher-order cognitive functioning.

There are always going to be differing opinions on things like this. That's why we have so many theories, all which have some merit, and all which have some loopholes. Whether you think I'm right or wrong is irrelevent, it is human nature to believe that "my" way is the "right" way, and others just have not seen the light yet. When in reality that's not how it is at all. You subscribe to particular science and theories, and I subscribe to particular science and theories (and speaking on my own behalf I subscribe to a diverse range of theories in different faculties), both based upon our experiences, observations, and knowledge base. That's how it has been for hundreds of years, and that is how it will continue to be. I respect that you have your belief system, and I can devise my own ideas of a particular theory's strengths and weaknesses, but just because you say it is so, doesn't make it necessarily so.

I'm glad you bring another viewpoint to the discussions, as it does invoke thought and analysis of what our current knowledge base holds. I'm glad it has brought about a type of discussion we haven't held here before, or in a while. And I'm glad to be continually questioning what I myself know (if we ever really "know" anything I don't know, as theories are consistently changing!). I'm glad you are standing up for what you believe in, truly I am, it takes a strong individual to maintain that level of composure (believe me, I've been there *G*). But it doesn't mean I'm going to wake up one day and adopt something that is not to me, the "ideal" theory of the time. Like I've said, I think that it is not one theory that holds the answers, but a range of theories all having some correct information that together makes the most accurate portrayal of "life". And that is what I have learned from interdisciplinary thinking. :-)

I'm in the middle of very busy times here at uni, but I'd be more than glad someday to get into a discussion on our thoughts about emergence/chaos theory with you. I don't mind discussing it, but now is likely not the best time as I can't fully devote myself to it.

Lee Charles Kelley

It's interesting to see how your mind tends to go automatically to the idea that the dog is doing something deliberately. I've worked with dogs who do the same behavior you've described above, of doing a play bow as if inviting the dog to play, and then becoming aggressive the instant the other dog gets close enough. I've never once thought it was a ploy or deception. My feeling has always been that the play bow reflected the first dog's feelings of social attraction for, and a desire to play with, the other dog. But when the other dog actually got up close (too close, in fact), that kind of proximity, and the energy inherent to it, was too much for the first dog to handle, and so he or she attacked out of fear. I

Interesting thought process.  I interpret this behavior in a completely different manner.  But this particular thread is about deception, not about pro-active dominant dog behavior.

There are a lot of cases of dog-aggro pitty dogs who will actually play bow to other dogs, enticing other dogs to come forward, seemingly for a friendly greeting, so that they can have access to fighting. It's a very bizarre behaviour chain, but rather cunning to observe.

Interesting that you should mention this, Kim.  I had a dog at one of my play groups once.  Very confident fellow, this one - and he came in, grabbed the first rope tug he found, and proceeded to play the "keep away" game with a bunch of other dogs.  He just dodged them, and there was no staring, no growling, absolutely no indication that he was anything but a normal player.  Then, he stopped, walked up to a particular dog (the kind that is always the bullied dog), made a couple of head tosses with the tug in his mouth (as if to say, "want this? let's play";).  The other dog didn't dare grab at it, of course (possession being 10/10 of the law with most dogs), so our hero tossed it at the other dog so that it landed just between his paws (both dogs were standing).  The wussy dog looked at the tug (immediately the tosser started wagging his tail, but staccato and stiff).  Wussy dog made a millimeter move toward the tug, and the "playmate" attacked.  Fortunately, I and another trainer noted the staccato and were on our way to break it up, which we did quickly.  But, having seen this, I am convinced that dog A really did bait dog B into picking up that tug.  Interesting behavior.

Xerxes

Lee Charles Kelley

Turid Rugaas says that breaking eye contact is a sign of nervousness,

 

Nervousness?  Ever seen a young wolf stalk an older wolf?  So the older wolf is nervous from being stalked by a pup?  That makes zero sense.

Are you talking about a wolf pup stalking an adult, or an adolescent wolf doing so?

As for nervousness, I didn't mean it the way you seem to have taken it.

As I see it, all behavior is the result of tension and release. Think of two dogs meeting in the park. There's usually some initial tension which is broken or released somewhat through the usual greeting behaviors, sniffing, making eye contact, looking away. These are all ways of releasing tension. Think of the play bow. Two fairly tension-free dogs are just kind of standing around. One wants to play, so he does a play bow. Remember, he WANTS to play. And desire inherently creates tension. There's no getting around that. If you have a desire, you automatically have internal tension. It's part of the process. So the first dog's play bow is both a release of tension and a "signal" to the other dog that he wants to play. The play bow often creates a certain amount of tension in the second dog, which is clearly visible if he moves away, eg., stiffens up, etc. It's not so clearly visible if he breaks eye contact. But again, breaking eye contact is a way of reducing tension. (I think Turid Rugaas gets it wrong when she calls these behaviors "calming signals;" to me they're indicators of stress or tension only.)

This isn't to say that there isn't a great deal of intelligence and emotional flexibility and all sorts of other neat things going on when dogs play together. But at the most basic level it's a kind of energy exchange.

So if an adolescent wolf starts stalking an adult wolf, why would you think this wouldn't create a reflexive reaction, on a purely knee-jerk level, in the adult? Certainly the ability to avoid danger must be hard-wired as part of the adult wolf's behavioral repertoire. So even if he realizes it's just Jr. getting frisky, the moment Jr. goes into a stalking position it HAS to create some tension in the adult wolf.

For instance, we know that when a border collie stalks sheep, he's not the only one exhibiting a fixed-action pattern. The sheep also have a natural, reflexive response to the visual cue of an animal stalking them: they clump together and move away. (In fact I'd say that most of the sheepherding process is this reflexive dance between the fixed-action patterns inherent to both species, and I think Ray Coppinger has said as much too.)

So it seems to me that unless the adult wolf has ice running through his veins, or no natural response to being stalked (which doesn't make sense), he's going to experience some internal tension. When he does, he has two choices, he can go ahead and play with the youngster (which isn't very likely, but possible), which would be one means of reducing his tension, or he can try to defuse his tension in another way, such as growling, lunging at the younger wolf, or simply breaking eye contact. You can see that as pretense if you want, but my explanation is simpler.

Lee Charles Kelley

Just another (simpler) way of looking at this behavior.

Xerxes

Actually your simpler way, is more complicated, as it requires the adult dog to develop a prey animal type response mechanism rather than the tried an true "fight or flight" mechanism which serves predators very well.

Your meaning isn't clear to me here. Are so saying that you don't think dogs inherently have prey animal reflexes? If so, then how do they take turns "acting out" the role of prey and predator? (And not they don't do it as a matter of pretense; it's a purely reflexive dance.)

Going back to the bison example I gave earlier, the breaking of eye contact with the wolves isn't a pretense on the part of the bison, it's a way of reducing internal tension in an effort to actually avoid the fight or flight mechanism. The wolf's job, so to speak, is to build up that tension to the point that the herd will run so that they can find which one of the prey animals has the weakest energy, meaning it will be the easiest to kill.

It's always about energy first.

LCK