Anim Cogn (2013) 16:1007–1009
DOI 10.1007/s10071-013-0669-0
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Familiarity-connected or stress-based contagious yawning
in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)? Some additional data
Karine Silva • Joana Bessa • Liliana de Sousa
Received: 5 March 2013 / Revised: 16 July 2013 / Accepted: 6 August 2013 / Published online: 28 August 2013
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract The present short note aimed at further
exploring data from a recent study showing socially mod-
ulated auditory contagious yawning in domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris). Two independent observers further
extended the analysis of all video recordings made in the
previous study and coded both the number of yawns per-
formed by the dogs and the frequencies or durations of
stress-related behaviors exhibited throughout the presen-
tation of familiar and unfamiliar yawns. By showing no
significant difference between conditions in the frequencies
or durations of the coded behaviors, nor any association
between the number of yawns and the frequencies or
durations of stress-related behaviors, results raised doubt
on the stress-induced yawn hypothesis, thus supporting
social modulation. The exact mechanism underlying con-
tagious yawning, however, needs further research.
Keywords Contagious yawning
Domestic dogs

Social modulation
Stress
Karine Silva and Joana Bessa contributed equally to this work.
K. Silva (&)
J. Bessa
L. de Sousa
Departamento de Ciências do Comportamento, Instituto de
Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto,
Largo Prof. Abel Salazar, 2, 4099-003 Porto, Portugal
e-mail: cssilva@icbas.up.pt
K. Silva
J. Bessa
L. de Sousa
Ânimas, Avenida Sidónio Pais, 392, r/c Dto.,
4100-466 Porto, Portugal
Introduction
The recent interest in the phenomenon of dogs yawning
contagiously at humans has raised several challenges as
conflicting results from different studies have left a number
of unresolved issues (for detailed discussions on the topic
see Campbell and de Waal 2010; Silva et al. 2012). In
particular, the question of whether contagious yawning in
dogs might have a basis in empathy has stimulated debate
among researchers (e.g., Joly-Mascheroni et al. 2008; Silva
et al. 2012 vs. O’Hara and Reeve 2010; Madsen and
Persson 2013; see also Yoon and Tennie 2010).
By showing that dogs are subject to auditory contagious
yawning and that, in addition, this is modulated by famil-
iarity with the model yawner, Silva et al. (2012) provided
the first direct test suggesting empathy-based emotionally
connected yawn contagion in dogs (but see the complete
paper for alternative interpretations). Such evidence,
however, strongly contrasts with observations from a pre-
vious test on social modulation in dogs (O’Hara and Reeve
2010) and also with more recent data on puppies (Madsen
and Persson 2013). In neither of these two studies was the
strength of yawn contagion related to dogs’ emotional
closeness with the yawning models. Based on this, Madsen
and Persson (2013) raised questions about the interpreta-
tion of the results presented in Silva et al. (2012) and
brought up the possibility of a stress artifact underlying the
apparent social modulation reported in Silva et al. (2012):
‘While the study showed that the sound of familiar yawns
elicited more contagious yawning than unfamiliar yawns,
the dogs’ increased yawning to familiar yawns may have
been induced by mildly heightened tension’ (Madsen and
Persson 2013). That is, according to Madsen and Persson
(2013), (at least) some of the yawns observed in response
to the sound of familiar yawns as ‘natural’ contagious
123
1008
yawns might have been, in fact, ‘tension’ yawns evoked by
that particular experimental condition: ‘The sound of the
owner’s yawns, emitted from two speakers immediately in
front of the dogs, was from a direction where the owner
was not (the owner was outside the testing room). Dogs
sensing this discrepancy would likely experience uncer-
tainty and consequently mild stress’ (Madsen and Persson
2013).
The possibility of a stress-related effect underlying Silva
et al.’s (2012) findings is a valid concern and deserves
serious consideration, particularly given lack of evidence of
empathy-based, emotionally connected yawning contagion
in dogs exposed to familiar and unfamiliar human yawns
presented by a live model (O’Hara and Reeve 2010). In light
of this, the purpose of the present short study was to further
explore recordings from Silva et al. (2012) so as to obtain
new data on the potential levels of stress in the tested dogs
during the presentation of familiar and unfamiliar yawns.
Assuming that ‘tension’ yawns, as opposed to ‘natural’
contagious yawns, tend to co-occur with a number of
associated signs of anxiety, then, under Madsen and Pers-
son’s (2013) argument that the increase in dog yawns in
response to the sounds of familiar yawns might have been
accounted for elicitation of tension yawns, one should be
able to (1) notice more frequent (or longer) stress-related
behaviors in that particular experimental condition and (2)
find a correlation between the number of yawns performed
by each dog and the total frequency, or duration, of stress-
related behaviors.
Methods
Two independent researchers, naive to the purpose of the
analysis and blind to the treatment conditions, re-coded the
video recordings of all experimental sessions conducted by
Silva et al. (2012). Both coded (1) the total number of
yawns performed by each dog during the presentation of
familiar and unfamiliar yawns and (2) the total frequency,
or total duration, of the behaviors exhibited by the dogs
that could potentially be related to some level of tension.
Regarding point (2), a shorter version of the ethogram
presented in Beerda et al. (1998) was considered for
analysis. Behaviors scored only in terms of frequency of
occurrence including the following: body shaking, circling,
open mouth, oral behaviors, sighing, stretching, and
vocalizing. Behaviors scored as state and event including
the following: autogrooming, panting, and trembling.
To test whether stress could have accounted for the
results reported in Silva et al. (2012), the above-referred
behaviors were scored and compared between the two
experimental conditions. Potential associations between the
total frequencies, or durations, of the observed behaviors
123
Anim Cogn (2013) 16:1007–1009
and number of yawns performed during the presentation of
familiar and unfamiliar yawns were also assessed.
All statistical analyses were performed using STATIS-
TICA 7.0 (StatSoft, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA), and a sig-
nificance level of 0.05 was used.
Results
Results showed 100 % agreement between the number of
yawns coded per dog for each of the two experimental
conditions (presentation of familiar and unfamiliar yawns)
and those reported in Silva et al. 2012 for those same
conditions (i.e., both new coders fully agreed with Silva
et al.’s reported yawn frequencies).
With respect to signs of stress, only four behaviors were
recorded throughout the entire study: snout liking (coded as
an oral behavior), scratching and licking self (both coded
as autogrooming), and panting. No other behavior consid-
ered for analysis (see the ‘Methods’ section) was ever
observed.
Since the total duration of the observed tension-related
behaviors was not normally distributed (Shapiro–Wilk
goodness-of-fit tests, P [ 0.05), only nonparametric tests
(i.e., Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests) were used throughout
to assess differences between treatments with regard to
apparent stress levels.
Results showed no significant differences in either the
total frequency of the observed stress-related behaviors
(snout liking, scratching, licking self, and panting; mean
total frequency ± S.D. during the presentation of familiar
yawns was 0.14 ± 0.44; mean total frequency ± S.D. dur-
ing the presentation of unfamiliar yawns was 0.10 ± 0.41;
N = 29, Z = 0.26, P = 0.79) or total duration (scratching,
licking self, and panting; mean total duration ± S.D. during
the presentation of familiar yawns was 0.52 – 1.57; mean
total duration ± S.D. recorded during the presentation of
unfamiliar yawns was 0.66 ± 1.88; N = 29, Z = 0.63,
P = 0.53). Also, no correlations were found between total
frequency of stress-related behaviors and number of yawns
performed during the presentation of familiar and unfamiliar
yawns (familiar yawns: Pearson’s r = 0.14, P = 0.46;
unfamiliar yawns: Pearson’s r = 0.09, P = 0.65). Addi-
tionally, no correlations were found between total duration
of stress-related behaviors and number of yawns (familiar
yawns: Pearson’s r = 0.11, P = 0.58; unfamiliar yawns:
Pearson’s r = 0.19, P = 0.33).
Discussion
According to Madsen and Persson’s (2013), a stress effect
related to the particular experimental procedure used by
Anim Cogn (2013) 16:1007–1009
Silva et al. (2012)—instead of an actual social effect—
might have accounted for the reported pattern of yawning.
The sounds of the familiar (i.e., owner’s) yawns were not
emitted from the exact same place where the owners were
hiding, which according to Madsen and Persson (2013)
could have generated uncertainty and consequently mild
stress in the tested dogs. The behavioral analysis here
presented, however, does not support this hypothesis.
Tested dogs only rarely showed behavioral indicators of
stress, and, crucially, there were no differences in stress
levels between conditions. Also, no association was found
between the number of yawns and the level of observed
stress, thus raising doubt on the stress-induced yawn
hypothesis.
Importantly, we only measured stress as evidenced in
stress-correlated behaviors, following Beerda et al. (1998).
That is, we did not measure stress directly through physi-
ological measurements, and we therefore cannot fully
discard Madsen and Persson’s (2013) argument. It seems
however unlikely that the tested dogs might have been able
to control their outward emotional responses throughout
the experimental sessions, thus showing physiological
markers of tension (such as heart rate changes; Harr et al.
2009), but suppressing behavioral indicators. Also, it is
important to note that the speakers used in Silva et al.
(2012), from which the sounds of yawns were emitted,
were positioned as close as possible (\1 m) to the owner
and that previous studies testing the ability of dogs to
match an auditory stimulus to a corresponding visual
stimulus were not compromised by dogs’ acute sound
localization. In Taylor et al. (2011), for example, the dis-
tance between the speakers from which sounds were
emitted and the associated visual stimulus was 1.5 m.
We conclude that stress differences per se did not
account for the results presented in Silva et al. (2012).
How, then, to interpret the contradictory evidence of
socially modulated contagious yawning in dogs reported in
O’Hara and Reeve (2010) and Madsen and Persson (2013)
(see the ‘Introduction’ section)? With respect to the latter,
it seems to us, given the age of the tested dogs (puppies
ranging from 4 to 14 months of age), that the contradiction
may be related to the testing age. Indeed, the authors
themselves refer to the possibility that, in species that
exhibit an empathy-based social modulatory effect on
contagious yawning, the effect may emerge only at later
stages of development (Madsen and Persson 2013). With
respect to the lack of evidence of familiarity-based conta-
gious yawning reported in O’Hara and Reeve (2010), we
previously argued that disparate findings could have been
1009
due to the methodology followed by these authors, which
implied some dog–human interaction that could have
diverted the dogs’ attention from the yawn stimuli (for
further details, see Silva et al. 2012). We, did, however,
also highlight the possibility that the social modulation of
contagious yawing evidenced by our previous results—and
supported by the present analysis—could be related to
differences in dogs’ capacity to form mental representa-
tions from familiar and unfamiliar auditory inputs (see
Adachi et al. 2007).
Clearly, there is a need for some kind of standardization
in the methodologies used to explore the phenomenon of
dogs yawning contagiously at humans, so that unequivocal
conclusions can be drawn about the particular mechanism
at its base—be it empathy related or not. Also, particularly
interesting insights could be gained from longitudinal
studies, in which the same dogs are tested throughout their
developmental process (i.e., from puppies to adults).
Acknowledgments We thank Elainie Alenkaer Madsen and Tomas
Persson for calling attention on the possibility of a stress-related
effect underlying the results presented in our previous study on
contagious yawning in dogs. Also, we are grateful to Claudio Tennie
for his valuable comments.
References
Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face
upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10:17–21
Beerda B, Schilder MBH, van Hooff JARAM, de Vries HW, Mol JA
(1998) Behavioral, saliva, cortisol and heart rate responses to
different types of stimuli in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci
58:365–381
Campbell MW, de Waal FBM (2010) Methodological problems in the
study of contagious yawning. Front Neurol Neurosci 28:20–127
Harr AL, Gilbert VR, Phillips KA (2009) Do dogs (Canis familiaris)
show contagious yawning? Anim Cogn 12:833–837
Joly-Mascheroni RM, Senju A, Shepherd AJ (2008) Dogs catch
human yawns. Biol Lett 4:446–448
Madsen EA, Persson T (2013) Contagious yawning in domestic dog
puppies (Canis lupus familiaris): the effect of ontogeny and
emotional closeness on low-level imitation in dogs. Anim Cogn
6:233–240
O’Hara SJ, Reeve AV (2010) A test of the yawning contagion and
emotional connectedness hypothesis in dogs, Canis familiaris.
Anim Behav 81:335–340
Silva K, Bessa J, de Sousa L (2012) Auditory contagious yawning in
domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): first evidence for social
modulation. Anim Cogn 15:721–724
Taylor AM, Reby D, McComb K (2011) Cross modal perception of
body size in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). PLoS ONE
6:e17069
Yoon JMD, Tennie C (2010) Contagious yawning: a reflection of
empathy, mimicry, or contagion? Anim Behav 79:1–3
123
Copyright of Animal Cognition is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.