Cover not available
Article published In:
Vocal Interactivity in-and-between Humans, Animals and Robots
Edited by Mohamed Chetouani, Elodie F. Briefer, Angela Dassow, Ricard Marxer, Roger K. Moore, Nicolas Obin and Dan Stowell
[Interaction Studies 24:1] 2023
► pp. 48–65

The Puss in Boots effect

Dog eye size influences pet-directed speech in women

ORCID logo | University of Sussex
| University of Sussex
ORCID logo | University of Sussex | University of Lincoln
ORCID logo | University of Sussex
ORCID logo | University of Arkansas at Little Rock
ORCID logo | University of Saint‑Etienne
ORCID logo | University of Saint‑Etienne | University of Sussex
Pet-directed speech (PDS) is often produced by humans when addressing dogs. Similar to infant-directed speech, PDS is marked by a relatively higher and more modulated fundamental frequency (f 0) than is adult-directed speech. We tested the prediction that increasing eye size in dogs, one facial feature of neoteny (juvenilisation), would elicit exaggerated prosodic qualities or pet-directed speech. We experimentally manipulated eye size in photographs of twelve dog breeds by −15%, +15% and +30%. We first showed that dogs with larger eyes were indeed perceived as younger. We then recorded men and women speaking towards these photographs, who also rated these images for cuteness. Linear mixed-effects models demonstrated that increasing eye size by 15% significantly increased pitch range (f 0 range) and variability (f 0CV) among women only. Cuteness ratings did not vary with eye size, due to a possible ceiling effect across eye sizes. Our results offer preliminary evidence that large eyes can elicit pet-directed speech and suggest that PDS may be modulated by perceived juvenility rather than cuteness. We discuss these findings in the context of inter-species vocal communication.
Keywords: nonverbal communication, pet-directed speech, neoteny, voice manipulation, fundamental frequency
Article outline
  • Infant and pet-directed speech
  • Neoteny
  • Present study
  • Methods
    • Participants
    • Materials
    • Procedure
    • Voice recording and analysis
    • Rating surveys
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Age judgements
    • Speech parameters
    • Cuteness ratings
  • Discussion
  • Ethics statement
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 28 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22032.for
References (45)
References
Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior, 18 (4), 237–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archer, J. & Monton, S. (2011). Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology, 117 1: 217–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, D. K. (1979). Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. J. Hered. 70 1, 301–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ben-Aderet, T., Gallego-Abenza, M., Reby, D., & Mathevon, N. (2017). Dog-directed speech: why do we use it and do dogs pay attention to it?. Proc. R. Soc.B, 284 (1846), 20162429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benders, T. (2017). Six-Month-Old Infants Prefer Speech with Raised Formant Frequencies. Infancy, 22 (6), 778–789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benders, T., StGeorge, J., & Fletcher, R. (2021). Infant-directed speech by Dutch fathers: Increased pitch variability within and across utterances. Language Learning and Development, 17 (3), 292–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, A., & Slocombe, K. (2018). ‘Who’s a good boy?!’Dogs prefer naturalistic dog-directed speech. Animal Cognition, 21 (3), 353–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biersack, S., Kempe, V., & Knapton, L. (2005). Fine-tuning speech registers: a comparison of the prosodic features of child-directed and foreigner-directed speech. In Ninth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2009). Praat: doing phonetics by computer (5.3.17; p. [URL]). [URL]
Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2013). Children’s preferences for infantile features in dogs and cats. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin, 1 (2), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borgi, M., Cogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V., Meints, K., & Cirulli, F. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 1, 411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002). What’s new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science, 296 (5572), pp. 1435–1435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristia, A. (2013). Input to language: The phonetics and perception of infant-directed speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7 (3), 157–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Mouzon, C., Gonthier, M., & Leboucher, G. (2023). Discrimination of cat-directed speech from human-directed speech in a population of indoor companion cats (Felis catus). Animal cognition, 26 (2), 611–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A., Taeschner, T., Dunn, J., Papousek, M., de Boysson-Bardies, B., & Fukui, I. (1989). A cross-language study of prosodic modifications in mothers’ and fathers’ speech to preverbal infants. Journal of child language, 16 (3), 477501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergely, A., Faragó, T., Galambos, Á., & Topál, J. (2017). Differential effects of speech situations on mothers’ and fathers’ infant-directed and dog-directed speech: An acoustic analysis. Scientific Reports, 7 (13739). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., & Sachser, N. (2009). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115 (3), 257–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Can, D. D., Soderstrom, M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2015). (Baby) talk to me: The social context of infant-directed speech and its effects on early language acquisition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24 (5), 339–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hecht, J., & Horowitz, A. (2015). Seeing dogs: Human preferences for dog physical attributes. Anthrozoös, 28 (1), 153–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Treiman, R. (1982). Doggerel: Motherese in a new context. Journal of Child Language, 9 1, 229–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hollien, H. (2014). Vocal fold dynamics for frequency change. Journal of Voice, 28 (4), 395–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jardat, P., Calandreau, L., Ferreira, V., Gouyet, C., Parias, C., Reigner, F., & Lansade, L. (2022). Pet-directed speech improves horses’ attention toward humans. Scientific Reports, 12 (1), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeannin, S., Gilbert, C., Amy, M., & Leboucher, G. (2017). Pet-directed speech draws adult dogs’ attention more efficiently than Adult-directed speech. Scientific Reports, 7 (1), 4980. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, J., Waller, B. M., Diogo, R., Hartstone-Rose, A., & Burrows, A. M. (2019). Evolution of facial muscle anatomy in dogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (29), 14677–14681. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lesch, R., Kotrschal, K., Schöberl, I., Beetz, A., Solomon, J., & Fitch, W. T. (2019). Talking to dogs: Companion animal-directed speech in a stress test. Animals, 9 (7), 417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Little, A. C. (2012). Manipulation of infant-like traits affects perceived cuteness of infant, adult and cat faces. Ethology, 118 (8), 775–782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen formen möglicher erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5 (2), 235–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1970). Studies in animal and human behaviour, Volume 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
MacDorman, K. F., Green, R. D., Ho, C. C., & Koch, C. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (3), 695–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masataka, N. (1998). Perception of motherese in Japanese sign language by 6-monthold hearing infants. Developmental Psychology, 34 1, 241–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGreevy, P. D., & Nicholas, F. W. (1999). Some practical solutions to welfare problems in dog breeding. Animal Welfare, 8 1, 329–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pettijohn, T. F., & Tesser, A. (2005). Threat and social choice: When eye size matters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145 (5), 547–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pittenger, J. B., Shaw, R. E., & Mark, L. S. (1979). Perceptual information for the age level of faces as a higher order invariant of growth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5 (3), 478.Google Scholar
Prato-Previde, E., Fallani, G., & Valsecchi, P. (2006). Gender differences in owners interacting with pet dogs: an observational study. Ethology, 112 (1), 64–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Price, E. O. (1999). Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65 (3), 245–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serpell, J. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – beyond the “cute response”. Society & Animals, 11 (1), 83–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyama, J. I., & Nagayama, R. S. (2007). The uncanny valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence, 16 (4), 337–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternglanz, S. H., Gray, J. L., & Murakami, M. (1977). Adult preferences for infantile facial features: An ethological approach. Animal Behaviour, 25 1, 108–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trainor, L. J., & Desjardins, R. N. (2002). Pitch characteristics of infant-directed speech affect infants’ ability to discriminate vowels. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (2), 335–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trut, L. N. (1999). Early Canid Domestication: The Farm-Fox Experiment: Foxes bred for tamability in a 40-year experiment exhibit remarkable transformations that suggest an interplay between behavioral genetics and development. American Scientist, 87 (2), 160–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uther, M., Knoll, M. A., & Burnham, D. (2007). Do you speak E-NG-LI-SH? A comparison of foreigner-and infant-directed speech. Speech Communication, 49 (1), 2–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waller, B. M., Peirce, K., Caeiro, C. C., Scheider, L., Burrows, A. M., McCune, S., & Kaminski, J. (2013). Paedomorphic facial expressions give dogs a selective advantage. PLoS one, 8 (12), e82686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weirich, M., & Simpson, A. (2019). Effects of Gender, Parental Role, and Time on Infant- and Adult-Directed Read and Spontaneous Speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62 (11), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woo, B. M., & Schaller, M. (2020). “Parental” responses to human infants (and puppy dogs): Evidence that the perception of eyes is especially influential, but eye contact is not. PloS one, 15 (5), e0232059. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, N., Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2013). Vowel hyperarticulation in parrot-, dog-and infant-directed speech. Anthrozoös, 26 (3), 373–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Mitchell, Robert W.
2024. Pet-Directed Speech. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, DOI logo
Anikin, Andrey, Valentina Canessa-Pollard, Katarzyna Pisanski, Mathilde Massenet & David Reby
2023. Beyond speech: Exploring diversity in the human voice. iScience 26:11 ► pp. 108204 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.