New research on "Can dogs really look 'guilty'?"

According to the BBC, "that guilty look on a dog's face is all in the imagination of the human owner." Fiddlesticks and poppycock. While I have no doubt that most owners have the tendency to anthropomorphize many of their pets behaviors - that certainly does not mean that they don't occur. What's more, is that the story seems to have gone viral in less than 24 hours with headlines gleefully declaring "dogs don't feel guilt!" Never mind that the study doesn't actually prove that.

What the study does show - is that dogs react to human behavior. There's a shocker. And that more often than not, people will interpret that in a human way. Another shocker. No ground breaking research here. Guess what - small children, most notably toddlers, will also give the same reaction. That doesn't mean the child doesn't know it has done something wrong - as any parent will attest to.

The article does not even touch on the fact that most people have not studied canine behavior or even know simple signs of stress in their pet. Most dog trainers/behaviorists will be quick to tell an unknowing owner that the lip licking they think is so cute, is usually a sign that a dog is stressed. Or that yawning is a calming mechanism commonly used by dogs for a multitude of reasons.

Reading this article made me wonder if Baynard even has an animal behavior program. According to the Animal Behavior Society, they do not (although they may be piggy-backing off of Columbia University's 2 PhD programs.) Dog Behavior 101 teaches us that dogs will commonly display what is called "whale eye" when frightened or stressed; this can often be erroneously misinterpreted to be guilt. In fact, the very first picture I see in the BBC article is an excellent example of what "whale eye" looks like. Yet no mention of this commonly known indictor in the articles about the research.

I guess my main problem with this entire topic is that it fuels the religious sectors that believe animals don't have emotions and therefore it is okay to do what we want with them. The Amish have long been known by animal welfare people for its ugly ties to puppy mills. Over and over you hear about people mistreating their dogs because their religion tells them that the animal "has no soul." As if that would even make sense or make it ok. Whether intended or not, this "research" will be used to further this belief.

Additionally, it bothers me on a scientific level. The articles that are popping up on every news site make the research methodology look hideous. Yes it is highly probable that the news articles can not convey the technical research properly, possibly causing the conclusion to be twisted, but if that's the case then why does Baynard's current home page have a link to the BBC article? More likely, the school saw an easy opportunity to get their popularity raised - damn the fact that the research is ho-hum at best.

Finally, this article annoys me because, of course, I attribute (both rightly and wrongly) emotions to my animals all the time. It's fun to do. Anecdotally (yes I know I'm contradicting myself -but we are talking about dogs here,) I have 2 prime examples on why this research is garbage. 1.) My dog Arwen usually shows me her guilt way before I know anything is wrong. There is a bunny hidden in a couch story that goes with that! 2.) My other dog Zander has zero reaction of his wrong doings even if you yell at him for something (unless you are actively trying to take something away.) Since he has indicated on numerous occasions that he is the superior being in the house, I'm not surprised. Maybe they are more like us than we care to admit.