Why should a dog recognise itself in a mirror?

[bokonon]

I was watching a TV programme that, in passing brought up the idea that only humans (and perhaps some of the apes) recognise themselves in a mirror and how dogs don't.

I'm pretty sure my cats recognize themselves in a mirror. If they see a cat walking outside a window, they'll start posturing to defend their territory. Seeing themselves inside in the full-length closet door mirrors evokes no reaction at all.

I've had a kitten scare itself with its own image in the mirror, so I think their cognition is probably on par with humans in that regard. The young ones think it's somebody else, the old ones recognize they're seeing themselves.

I suspect dogs also recognize themselves, and don't much give a damn if there's a red dot on their nose. The idea that it's a scent thing doesn't strike me as likely -- lack of scent would seem to imply it's not a different dog, if that's how their thinking goes, which would further imply they recognize they're looking at themselves. Unless they're also getting aggressive with the doggie in the mirror, in which case they're probably not as smart as my cats.

 

[Modified]

Modified, if you still have a dog, and a large mirror, here's an interesting experiment you can do: position the mirror so that it allows to see "around the corner", and try communicating with your dog visually through the mirror (many possibilities here - show it its favorite toy, a snack, gesture it to sit, etc.). - Just be careful about calling the dog to yourself, it could easily run into the mirror, break it and/or get hurt. It might be safer to tie the dog to something, or place the mirror sufficiently high above the floor. - Once you get that going, think about various ways the experiment can be modified...

When I said, "they seem to know it is not reality and they seem somewhat disturbed by it, but at least they don't think another dog is in there", I was referring to their own reflection and not some general property of mirrors. They probably know the reflection is of them, but they really don't want to look at it for some reason. It would be hard to test their reaction to their own reflection in any way if they refuse to look at it.

I expect if the mirror was at an angle and they didn't know it was there, they wouldn't know if it was a mirror, window, or hole, and would default to guessing "hole".

 

[Dancing David]

Late to the fray:

It is a very limited sense of 'sel-recognition' that is based upon a very limited model of 'self-recognition'.

 

[Thabiguy]

Sure, the dog would not be expected to realize it's a mirror if it were at an angle. As I suggested in "Once you get that going, think about various ways the experiment can be modified...", the basic experiment would be an introduction to further experimentation.

For example, one could gradually move, so that eventually the dog would see not only the reflection of the person, but also the person directly. How would the dog react to that? What image will it look at? Would it depend on which of the images is looking in the dog's direction? Or which would appear more complete? What if the person disappeared again? What if the person held a toy hidden by their body so that it would only be visible in the reflection? ...

Or the mirror could be carefully setup so that when the dog approaches the person's reflection, its own reflection would get into view. How would the dog react? If it's startled, what next - would it ignore the reflection and get back to the person's reflection? Would it investigate its own reflection? Or would seeing its own reflection let the dog realize the setup, perhaps even help it find the actual location of the person? ...

A lot of various experiments like that could be done (while taking care to prevent injuries of the dog), all one needs is just a bit of creativity and willingness to do it. Trying it out is always better than guessing.

 

[ReFLeX]

This reminds me of a study I just read about in Scientific American Mind. In humans, it's known that acquisition of language plays a role in being able to make inferences about what other people are thinking. Researchers from Wellesley College were trying to test whether social experience alone would be enough for humans to grasp theory of mind. They studied deaf Nicaraguan adults, some of whom had only learned "an early, rudimentary form of Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL), whereas others who were fluent in a more sophisticated form of NSL that included mental state terms, such as 'know' and 'think.'" All of the participants took a false-belief test which is commonly used to determine whether a person being tested is able to attribute a belief to another person even if the participant knows that belief to be false. In the study, those who had learned the more complex language were more likely to succeed at the task. In addition, two years later, the signers from the first group who had improved their NSL knowledge performed better at the task. "

The findings support the hypothesis that although an implicit understanding of other people's knowledge and belief states develops early in life, advanced language is needed "to unlock the ability to productively use it," Pyers says (Branan, 2009).

While this has no direct implication for the above discussion, I find the idea that language is a prerequisite for advanced thought processes very interesting.

 

[RSLancastr]

I seem to recall it being suggested that most dogs don't take an interest in images on TV because there is no smell to associate with the images. I imagine it's the same thing with images in a mirror. They have no smell, hence they are not of any interest.

Cats seem to be nearly as "smell-oriented" as are dogs, and I once had a cat who attacked our TV when it was showing images of swimming fish. I'm not sure what that means, but it was hilarious to watch.

 

[LTC8K6]

If a dog is crazy about chasing a tennis ball, like mine is, does it react to a tennis ball in a mirror? Does it react to it's owner with the tennis ball in a mirror? How about the same on a TV screen?

I don't know.

I guess it may depend on the dog and it's experience with mirrors and TV's.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I find this amusing as I often fail to recognise myself in a mirror.
Not if I'm actually shaving or something- but if, for example, I am seated in a restaurant facing a mirror on an opposite wall, I'm likely to recognise the back of the head of the person seated across from me as a reflection, well before I realise the goofy bald bloke looking at me is in fact, me.

 

[Dogdoctor]

My impression is that dogs can visually recognize things but being that they cannot actually see themselves they don't recognize the significance of their own image. My friends dog can recognize me from a distance without the benefit of smell or hearing my voice (she is quite happy to see me).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

These experiments are certainly very interesting but to my way of thinking not very important. After all, why should we expect other animals to behave the way humans do? For all we know, dogs are smugly watching us relate to our mirror image and thinking "Fools!".

Each creature is adapted to its environment in the best way it can be. One way is not "better" or "worse" than another way.

I don't think these experiments say anything about anything being "better" or "worse". I also don't think they're unimportant. They tell us which animals have demonstrable self-recognition. This is basically the ability to build a mental model of themselves from an external perspective.

I think it can hint at which structures might be responsible for that ability.

I think it's a fascinating approach. Though I'm also fascinated by research into "mirror" neurons.

It seems to me that the issues people have against these mirror tests are based on misunderstandings of what we can conclude from them.

Really, the claim that these tests argue that one way of adapting to an environment is "better" or "worse" is a straw man position. They don't say that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My impression is that dogs can visually recognize things but being that they cannot actually see themselves they don't recognize the significance of their own image.

I don't follow the logic here. Do you think humans and other apes can "actually see themselves" but that dogs can't?

 

[Amapola]

I don't think these experiments say anything about anything being "better" or "worse". I also don't think they're unimportant. They tell us which animals have demonstrable self-recognition. This is basically the ability to build a mental model of themselves from an external perspective.

I think it can hint at which structures might be responsible for that ability.

I think it's a fascinating approach. Though I'm also fascinated by research into "mirror" neurons.

It seems to me that the issues people have against these mirror tests are based on misunderstandings of what we can conclude from them.

Really, the claim that these tests argue that one way of adapting to an environment is "better" or "worse" is a straw man position. They don't say that.

The "better" or "worse" comes from the idea that an animal that can self-recognize is somehow more valuable than an animal that can not. (For an amusing example, look on the Forum Community page for the thread about animals that people will or will not eat - if they perceive the animal can self-recognize, for some people, that means they will not eat it.)

I agree it's interesting. It's the value people place on it that I find odd. Why not value a frog, or a rattlesnake, as much as we value dogs? As much as people dislike rattlesnakes (and spend inordinate amounts of time trying to kill them) they are a creature perfectly adapted to their environment and perform the valuable service of ridding the world of excess mice and rats. Since dogs are sometimes praised for the exact same service, it's odd to me that people hate rattlesnakes but love dogs. I think it's because they perceive that the dog is more "like" them than the rattlesnake is, and so they are fascinated with the idea that the dog can self-identify, just like we can. It's entirely possible that dogs have completely different abilities than humans do - but they are still great animals, just like rattlesnakes are.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I don't follow the logic here. Do you think humans and other apes can "actually see themselves" but that dogs can't?

Dogs can "see themselves" in a mirror but mostly fail to recognize the significance that is actually themselves. Humans can "see themselves" in a mirror and most will realize it is a mirror image of themselves.

 

[Brian-M]

My impression is that dogs can visually recognize things but being that they cannot actually see themselves they don't recognize the significance of their own image. My friends dog can recognize me from a distance without the benefit of smell or hearing my voice (she is quite happy to see me).

I don't follow the logic here. Do you think humans and other apes can "actually see themselves" but that dogs can't?

Dogs can "see themselves" in a mirror but mostly fail to recognize the significance that is actually themselves. Humans can "see themselves" in a mirror and most will realize it is a mirror image of themselves.

You've made things a little confusing by using the phrase "see themselves" to mean without a mirror in the first instance, and with a mirror in the second instance, but if I'm understanding you correctly, what you are saying is:

• The reason you think dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror is because they can't "see themselves [without a mirror]".
• The reason that the reason you think dogs can't "see themselves [without a mirror]" is because dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror.

Is it just me, or is this logic looking a little circular?

 

[Dogdoctor]

You've made things a little confusing by using the phrase "see themselves" to mean without a mirror in the first instance, and with a mirror in the second instance, but if I'm understanding you correctly, what you are saying is:

• The reason you think dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror is because they can't "see themselves [without a mirror]".
• The reason that the reason you think dogs can't "see themselves [without a mirror]" is because dogs don't recognize themselves in a mirror.

Is it just me, or is this logic looking a little circular?

I'm not sure but think maybe dogs can be trained to recognize themselves in a mirror. In their normal life they have no need and will not gain anything from looking at themselves in a mirror. There is no motivation for them to recognize themselves. Maybe if given motivation in some manner they can learn to use a mirror and learn to recognize themselves. Or it is possible that no matter how it is approached a dog can never learn to recognize itself in a mirror. I'm not sure. My terminology was not clear. It's not that simple to explain it and I am working so I haven't wanted to spend more time to make it clear. It's not like I am claiming to have data. I'm just saying this is my guess and you can take it or leave it. However feel free to ask for clarification.

 

[LuvGodzilla]

When I'm driving my dogs will communicate with me through the mirrors. We have a bunch of mirrors in one bathroom and one of my dogs will look at me in the mirror, then look at the real me with a bit of a startle, then look in the mirror again, etc. They seem to get that it's really me in the mirror. Oh, and a few times my dog Simon got very angry at the dog he saw in the rear view mirror (it was my other dog Koa with her head hanging out the window).

I agree, I have two dogs that will watch me in the rearview/side mirrors or the bathroom mirror. I had one dog that would only watch TV if Orangutans were on and he hated Orangutans.

I have a female that goes out of her way to go into a room in the house with a full length mirror on the wall and stare at it. She doesn't growl or bark, or cock her head, just looks at it.

I have one Rottweiler who I swear loves to pose for the camera. Dogs live in the moment, the reflection holds no threat, it would be interesting to superimpose your own dog's aggressive posture onto that mirror and see how they react.

 

[Soapy Sam]

If a dog sees a human he knows in a mirror, does it recognise her?
I would think so.
If he sees a dog he knows would he recognise him?
I think so.

 

[Fontwell]

Another late entry here. I think I saw the program too. The thing I don't get is this; Why do people get so interested in self awareness anyway?

Usually (and in the program I saw) self awareness is brought up as part of a discussion on consciousness. But the point about consciousness, for me, is how do things experience qualia (what it is _like_ to experience something). I suspect that dogs, mice and hamsters experience qualia. Ants, fleas? Perhaps. Smaller than that? No idea. This is the front line of understanding consciousness.

Surely self awareness is more or less only a measure of intellectual capacity. While that is interesting in its own right, I feel it belongs to discussions about intelligence rather than consciousness. BTW, I realize the OP didn't mention consciousness

 

[Dogdoctor]

If a dog sees a human he knows in a mirror, does it recognize her?
I would think so.
If he sees a dog he knows would he recognize him?
I think so.

I am not so sure. Probably but then they aren't really seeing the person or dog but their mirror image. I'm don't know if they can make that analysis that the mirror image is the same person? Probably but maybe not. For us we can easily do so but other species????? I am not sure. Does a mirror image of a person or dog mean the same thing to a dog as the normal orientation image? I would say probably but that's the kind of thing that may be different between species.

 

[blutoski]

If a dog sees a human he knows in a mirror, does it recognise her?
I would think so.
If he sees a dog he knows would he recognise him?
I think so.

Yes, this is the reason I think smell &c is a bit of a red herring. Dogs can recognize other dogs perfectly fine without other cues. We've all walked by a house with the Doberman barking at us in the window. Or surprised a dog locked in a car in a parking lot. That's not the weakness.

The experiment is making unclear assumptions about what an animal would do if they saw a dog in the mirror, and also assumptions about what a dog might do if they recognize the reflection as their own.