Experiments: Can Dogs Anticipate Their Owner's Return?

From OpenSourceScience

Contents 1 Preliminary Investigations 2 Wiseman Investigates 3 Controversy Over Methods & Analysis 4 Sheldrake's Further Studies 5 Let's Replicate This Experiment 6 References

Preliminary Investigations

Many dog owners claim that their pets anticipate their return, typically by going to wait at a door, window, driveway, or even at a bus stop (Sheldrake, 1994). In the early 1990's, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist, and former Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, completed a number of survey studies to find out how many pet owners had observed seemingly psychic abilities in their pets. Sheldrake's household surveys found that 46% of dog owners had noticed this ability in England and 45% in California (Brown & Sheldrake, 1997; Sheldrake & Smart, 1997; Sheldrake et al, 1998).

In April of 1994, Pamela Smart read about Sheldrake's research in the British newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, and volunteered herself and her terrier Jaytee to take part. Over several years, members of Smart's family had observed Jaytee anticipate Pam's arrival by up to half an hour or longer, even when she returned home at non-routine times. From May 1994 to February 1995, the family kept notes on this behavior. Disregarding the times that Jaytee went to the window to bark at cats or for other obvious reasons, they noted the time at which the dog seemed to be showing anticipatory behavior. Smart kept records of her journeys home by noting the time at which she left to come home, where she was coming from, her means of transport, and her time of arrival.

In a paper published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Sheldrake (1998) reported on these preliminary investigations. Using the Smart family's notes, as well as the data from his own experiments with Jaytee, he found that the dog reacted 10 minutes or more in advance of Smart's return on 82 occasions and showed no anticipatory reaction on 14 occasions. There was a highly significant correlation between the time at which the dog reacted and the time at which Smart set off homewards. During additional experiments, his reactions occurred on 4 out of 5 occasions when Smart traveled by unfamiliar means, for example in taxis. He also reacted on 4 out of 4 occasions when she set off for home at randomly selected times. According to Sheldrake, the evidence from these preliminary investigations suggested that Jaytee's reactions depended on an influence from his owner detected by the dog in a manner currently unknown to science.

Wiseman Investigates

In November 1994, both Jaytee's reactions and Smart's movements were monitored by two cameramen in conjunction with a team from the Science Unit of Austrian Television (ORF) headed by Dr. Heinz Lager. The video footage showed that Jaytee reacted 11 seconds after Smart was told to go home at a randomly selected time previously unknown to her. The television coverage of the experiment received considerable attention from the media. Dr. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hetfordshire and respected researcher of parapsychological claims, was asked by various newspapers and television programs for his comments on Jaytee's anticipatory behavior. In early 1995, Sheldrake invited Wiseman to test Jaytee's abilities for himself. Wiseman, Sheldrake and Smart discussed how to construct an experimental procedure that would safeguard against the following possible normal explanations:

• Responding to routine – the owner would leave home at a randomly selected time

• Sensory cueing from owner – the owner would return from a location which is sufficiently far away to eliminate such cues

• Sensory cueing from people remaining with the pet – no one who remains with the pet would know when the owner will return

• Selective memory – the experimenter would make a complete and accurate recording of the pet's behavior

• Multiple guesses – the owner's behavior or intention that allegedly causes the pet to signal their return would be clearly determined before the start of the experiment

• Misremembering – both owner and pet should be carefully monitored during the experiment to determine when they carried out the relevant behaviors

• Selective matching – anyone attempting to judge the record of the pet's behavior and decide when (s)he made the appropriate signal should not know when the owner started to return home

In the British Journal of Psychology (BJP), Wiseman and his colleagues Matthew Smith and Julie Milton (1998) described four experiments with Jaytee in which the above protocols were used. The authors set a maximum time for each experiment (e.g. three hours), which was then broken down into a number of time blocks (e.g. eighteen time blocks, lasting ten minutes each). According to Wiseman et al, an experiment was considered successful if the first time that Jaytee inexplicably went to the window occurred in first ten minute time block after his owner began her return trip home. After the first unsuccessful experimental session, Wiseman et al decided (based on a suggestion from Smart) that the first time that Jaytee inexplicably went to the window for more than two minutes after his owner started returning home would be a better criterion for success. Based on this criterion, their analysis did not support the hypothesis that Jaytee could accurately detect when Smart set off to return home.

Controversy Over Methods & Analysis

Several months later, Sheldrake published a commentary in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (JSPR) (Sheldrake, 1999a) on Wiseman et al's paper, stating that they had not discussed their criterion for success with Sheldrake, but based it on remarks made by the press about Jaytee's behavior rather than Sheldrake's previous research. Wiseman looked at how Jaytee behaved after Smart started her return trip home. Sheldrake's preliminary investigations had found that Jaytee went to the window a few minutes before her journey, while she was preparing to set off. He also criticized Wiseman et al's decision not to account for the dog's behavior after the 'signal' had been given, since Jaytee was known to wait by the window for longer periods during Smart's return trip home. Finally, Sheldrake stated that his analysis of their data conformed to the same pattern of response as his own data, thus confirming and replicating his findings.

Soon after, Wiseman and his colleagues published a response (2000) to Sheldrake's commentary. They suggested that Sheldrake's observed patterns could easily arise if Jaytee did very little for some time after Smart left home and began to visit the window more often, and for longer periods, the longer Smart stayed away. Second, they stated that Sheldrake's evidence was post hoc and would not provide compelling evidence for psi ability unless it was supported by a larger body of research. Third, at the time of submitting their paper to the BJP, the authors stated that it was not possible to properly assess the claim that Sheldrake had found the patterns he described in his own data. He also stated the experiments appeared to contain design problems and referenced a paper by Dr. Susan Blackmore (1999) critical of Sheldrake's methods.

In a response to Wiseman et al's reply, Sheldrake (2000) stated that his analysis was not post hoc because he had been plotting his data accordingly right from the beginning of his research with Jaytee. Additionally, he countered Wiseman and Blackmore's criticisms about the duration of Pam's trips by comparing Jaytee's behavior during Pam's short, medium, and long absences. He concluded that Jaytee had not gone to the window more as time wore on, citing specific data from his forthcoming study in press (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000a).

Sheldrake continues to claim that the experiments represent significant evidence for an animal/human interaction that cannot be explained by conventional scientific theories. He has offered his theory of morphic resonance as an explanation. Wiseman stands by his claims about methodological problems in the experiments.

Sheldrake's Further Studies

Another study came out in the Journal of Scientific Exploration the same year as the JSPR debate (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000a), and described more than 100 videotaped experiments with Jaytee, which were time-coded and scored "blind". Adopting the methodological controls as described in Wiseman et al (1998), Sheldrake & Smart found that Jaytee was at the window 4% of the time during the main period of her absence and 55% of the time when she was returning. Additionally, the authors completed a series of experiments in a more 'naturalistic' setting, where Smart returned home at non-routine times of her choosing, as well as control experiments, where Smart did not return home at all. The authors found the results of these naturalistic experiments to be significant, and showed that Jaytee did not wait at the window more and more as time went on.

The last published investigation into the phenomenon of 'dogs that know when their owners are coming home' came out in Anthrozoös, the journal of the International Society for Anthrozoology (Sheldrake & Smart, 2000b). This set of ten video-taped experiments was carried out with a Rhodesian ridgeback dog named Kane. Kane's window area was filmed continuously while his owner went to places more than 8 km away and come home at a variety of non-routine times, some of which were selected at random and communicated by a telephone pager. The time-coded videos were scored blind by an independent party. On average, Kane spent 26% of the time at the window while his owner was returning and 1% during the rest of her absence, a difference that was highly significant statistically.

Let's Replicate This Experiment

This experiment intrigues every dog lover and addresses a belief still common among dog owners. In the following pages we discuss how this experiment can be replicated, moving us closer to a consensus on this claimed ability. We’ll also be exploring how to web-enable this experiment making it more cost-effective and accessible to the broadest possible audience. Please join us in this discussion.

• Discuss Methodological Considerations

• Discuss Statistical Considerations

• I’d Like to Replicate This Experiment

• My Dog Would Be a Good Candidate For This Experiment

• I’d Like to Volunteer in Some Other Way

References

Blackmore, S. (1999). If the truth is out there, we've not found it yet. Times Higher Education Supplement, 27 August, 18.

Brown, D. J., & Sheldrake, R. (1997). Perceptive Pets: A Survey in North-West California. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 62,396-406.

Sheldrake, R. (1994). Seven Experiments that Could Change the World. London: Fourth Estate.

Sheldrake, R. (1998). A dog that seems to know when his owner is returning: Preliminary investigations. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 62, 220-232.

Sheldrake, R. (1999a). Commentary on a paper by Wiseman, Smith, and Milton on the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 63, 306-311.

Sheldrake, R. (1999b). Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home. London: Hutchinson.

Sheldrake, R. (2000). The "psychic pet" phenomenon. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 64, 126-128.

Sheldrake, R., Lawlor, C., & Turney, J. (1998). Perceptive Pets: A Survey in London. Biology Forum, 91, 57-74.

Sheldrake, R., & Smart, P. (1997). Psychic Pets: A Survey in North-West England. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 61, 353-364.

Sheldrake, R., and Smart, P. (2000a). A dog that seems to know when his owner is coming home: Video-taped experiments and observations. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14, 233-255.

Sheldrake, R., and Smart, P. (2000b). Testing a return-anticipating dog, Kane. Anthrozoös, 13(4), 203-212.

Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (1998). Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the 'psychic pet' phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology 89, 453-462.

Wiseman, R., Smith, M. & Milton, J. (2000). The 'psychic pet' phenomenon: A reply to Rupert Sheldrake. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 64, 46-49.