Question

How Compassionate is Your Dog?Can dogs recognize when their owner is in distress? In one study, 34 dog-owner pairs were recruitedto participate in an experiment? in which the owner sat behind a magnetic door that the dog couldpush open. The pairs were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: in the distress condition,the owner said help in a distressed tone exey 15 seconds and made crying sounds between speaking.In the control condition, the owner said heip in a neutral tone and hummed between speaking. Thevocalizations between the two groups were at the same volume.(a) One part of the study tested whether the proportion of dogs opening the door to be with theirowner was higher for dogs in the distress condition than for dogs in the control condition. Statethe null and alternative hypotheses for this test.(b) For the test in part (a), the evidence from the sample was not strong enough to support thealternative hypothesis. Explain what this means in terms of dogs and owners.(c) Another part of the study looked only at the dogs that did open the door, and tested whetherthe mean time to open the door was smaller for dogs in the distress condition than for dogs inthe control condition (meaning that dogs reacted faster when owners were distressed.) State thenull and alternative hypotheses for this test.(d) For the test in part (c), the evidence from the sample was strong enough to support the alternativehypothesis. Explain what this means in terms of dogs and owners.

Answer 1

a) H0: The proportion of dogs opening the door is the same for distress and control conditions. Ha: The proportion is higher for distress condition. b) If evidence is weak, it means distress didn't affect door opening. c) H0: Mean time to open door is same for distress and control conditions. Ha: Mean time is smaller for distress. d) If evidence is strong, it means distress sped up door opening.

Step-by-step explanation:

a) Hypotheses:

Null Hypothesis (H0): The proportion of dogs opening the door to be with their owner is the same for dogs in the distress condition as for dogs in the control condition.

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): The proportion of dogs opening the door to be with their owner is higher for dogs in the distress condition than for dogs in the control condition.

b) Explanation:

If the evidence from the sample was not strong enough to support the alternative hypothesis, it means that there was not enough statistical evidence to show that dogs in the distress condition were more likely to open the door compared to dogs in the control condition when their owner was in distress.

c) Hypotheses:

Null Hypothesis (H0): The mean time to open the door is the same for dogs in the distress condition as for dogs in the control condition.

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): The mean time to open the door is smaller for dogs in the distress condition than for dogs in the control condition.

d) Explanation:

If the evidence from the sample was strong enough to support the alternative hypothesis, it means that there was enough statistical evidence to show that dogs in the distress condition reacted faster and took less time to open the door compared to dogs in the control condition when their owner was in distress.

Answer 2

The study tested whether dogs were more likely to open a door when their owner sounded distressed versus not and whether they did so more quickly. The first part of the study did not support the hypothesis that dogs were more likely to open the door, but the second part supported the hypothesis that dogs reacted faster in opening the door when their owners sounded distressed.

Step-by-step explanation:

Understanding Dog Behavior and Compassion

When assessing canine behavior in response to owner distress, we must understand the scientific hypotheses that are formulated based on behavioral studies. In the outlined study, the Null Hypothesis for part (a) would be 'There is no difference in the proportion of dogs opening the door for owners in distress versus those not in distress.' In contrast, the Alternative Hypothesis suggests that 'Dogs are more likely to open the door when their owner is in distress compared to when they are not.'

If the evidence was not strong enough to support the alternative hypothesis, it indicates that the behavior of dogs in the sample did not significantly differ between the two conditions. That is, the study did not find conclusive evidence that dogs were more likely to open the door when their owners expressed distress.

For part (c), the Null Hypothesis is 'There is no difference in the time it takes for dogs to open the door whether the owner is in distress or not.' The Alternative Hypothesis states that 'Dogs in the distress condition open the door faster than those in the control condition.' If the sample evidence supported the alternative hypothesis, this implies that, on average, dogs reacted quicker to open the door for their distressed owners than for their non-distressed owners.

Understanding these behaviors helps us comprehend the complexities of dog-human interactions and the capabilities of dogs to respond to human emotions. Studies like these contribute to our knowledge of animal behavior and inform practices in training and caring for dogs.