In the present study we investigated the influence of positive and negative arousal situations and the presence of an audience on dogs’ behavioural displays and facial expressions. We exposed dogs to positive anticipation, non-social frustration and social frustration evoking test sessions and measured pre and post-test salivary cortisol concentrations. Cortisol concentration did not increase during the tests and there was no difference in pre or post-test concentrations in the different test conditions, excluding a different level of arousal. Displacement behaviours of “looking away” and “sniffing the environment” occurred more in the frustration-evoking situations compared to the positive anticipation and were correlated with cortisol concentrations. “Ears forward” occurred more in the positive anticipation condition compared to the frustration-evoking conditions, was positively influenced by the presence of an audience, and negatively correlated to the pre-test cortisol concentrations, suggesting it may be a good indicator of dogs’ level of attention. “Ears flattener”, “blink”, “nose lick”, “tail wagging” and “whining” were associated with the presence of an audience but were not correlated to cortisol concentrations, suggesting a communicative component of these visual displays. These findings are a first step to systematically test which subtle cues could be considered communicative signals in domestic dogs.

Appeasement signals are behavioural patterns displaying an animal’s non-aggressive attitude and are hypothesized to reduce the aggressive behaviours in the receiver. In domestic dogs, specific displacement behaviours (i.e., behavioural patterns exhibited without an apparent function related to the ongoing situation), have been suggested to function as appeasement signals. To test this possibility, we assessed whether the occurrence of these behaviours was dependent on a social conflict context, predicting that, if displacement behaviours also function as appeasement signals, they should be more prevalent in a conflict vs. non-conflict context. Fifty-three dogs were exposed to two unfamiliar humans approaching them in either a mildly threatening or neutral way. We categorized the attitude of the dogs towards the strangers as “reactive”, i.e., barking and lunging towards the stimulus, and “non-reactive”, i.e., remaining passive in front of the stimuli. We coded dogs’ displacement activities and modelled their duration or frequency as a function of the interaction between the test condition and the attitude of the dog. Displacement behaviours of “blinking”, “nose licking” and “lip wiping” were associated with a “non-reactive” attitude, independently from the test condition, confirming an association with a non-aggressive intention. “Head turning” was associated with a “non-reactive” attitude in the threatening condition. In conclusion, dogs with a non-aggressive attitude exhibited more putative appeasement signals; however, these were not strictly associated with a conflict-ridden situation, calling for further investigation of their function.

The aim of the current study was to investigate the influence of both intra- and interspecific audiences on dogs' facial expressions and behaviours. Forty-six dogs were exposed to three test conditions in which a food reward, initially available, was denied when in the presence of either a human (Human condition) or a dog audience (Dog condition), or in the absence of a visible audience (Non-social condition). Salivary cortisol was collected to evaluate the stress/arousal activation in the different conditions. Compared to the Non-social condition, the presence of a conspecific evoked more facial expressions, according to the DogFACS (Facial Action Coding System, an anatomically based tool to analyze facial expressions in domestic dogs), (EAD105—Ears downward), displacement behaviours (AD137—Nose licking, AD37—Lip wiping), tail wagging, whining, and panting (AD126). When facing a conspecific, dogs assumed a more avoidant attitude, keeping a distance and not looking at the stimuli, compared to when in the presence of the human partner. Dogs also exhibited more facial expressions (EAD102—Ears Adductor, EAD104—Ears Rotator), displacement behaviours (AD137—Nose licking, AD37—Lip wiping), panting (AD126) and whining when facing the conspecific than the human partner. Post-test cortisol was not influenced by any condition, and no association between pre-test cortisol and behavioural variables was found, thus strong differences in the levels of stress/arousal were unlikely to be responsible for differences in behavior between conditions. Considering the current results in the context of the available literature, we suggest that the higher displacement behaviors exhibited with the conspecifics were likely due to an increased level of uncertainty regarding the situations.

The relationship between dogs and their owners is characterized by an affective and enduring bond. It has been suggested that oxytocin might be the underlying mechanism driving this relationship, however evidence is mixed. In this study we tested whether intranasally administered oxytocin (compared to saline) would influence dogs' behavioural synchrony and shared attention towards their owners. Each individuals' pre and post administration oxytocin concentrations (measured in urine) were included in the analyses. Urinary oxytocin concentrations after administrations were positively associated with dogs' duration of social proximity and looking behaviours towards their owners supporting the role of oxytocin in modulating dogs' human-directed social behaviours.

Dogs’ displacement behaviours and some facial expressions have been suggested to function as appeasement signals, reducing the occurrences of aggressive interactions. The present study had the objectives of using naturalistic videos, including their auditory stimuli, to expose a population of dogs to a standardised conflict (threatening dog) and non-conflict (neutral dog) situation and to measure the occurrence of displacement behaviours and facial expressions under the two conditions. Video stimuli were recorded in an ecologically valid situation: two different female pet dogs barking at a stranger dog passing by (threatening behaviour) or panting for thermoregulation (neutral behaviour). Video stimuli were then paired either with their natural sound or an artificial one (pink noise) matching the auditory characteristics. Fifty-six dogs were exposed repeatedly to the threatening and neutral stimuli paired with the natural or artificial sound. Regardless of the paired auditory stimuli, dogs looked significantly more at the threatening than the neutral videos (χ²_{(56, 1)} = 138.867, p < 0.001). They kept their ears forward more in the threatening condition whereas ears were rotated more in the neutral condition. Contrary to the hypotheses, displacement behaviours of sniffing, yawning, blinking, lip-wiping (the tongue wipes the lips from the mouth midpoint to the mouth corner), and nose-licking were expressed more in the neutral than the threatening condition. The dogs tested showed socially relevant cues, suggesting that the experimental paradigm is a promising method to study dogs’ intraspecific communication. Results suggest that displacement behaviours are not used as appeasement signals to interrupt an aggressive encounter but rather in potentially ambiguous contexts where the behaviour of the social partner is difficult to predict.