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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The Puss in Boots effect

Dog eye size influences pet-directed speech in women

ORCiD logo with link | University of Sussex
 | University of Sussex
ORCiD logo with link | University of Sussex | University of Lincoln
ORCiD logo with link | University of Sussex
ORCiD logo with link | University of Arkansas at Little Rock
ORCiD logo with link | University of Saint‑Etienne
ORCiD logo with link | University of Saint‑Etienne | University of Sussex
Published online: 28 August 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.22032.for
Abstract
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 (f0) 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 (f0 range) and variability (f0CV) 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.
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
References (45)
References
Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(4), 237–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Archer, J. & Monton, S. (2011). Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology, 1171: 217–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belyaev, D. K. (1979). Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. J. Hered. 701, 301–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benders, T. (2017). Six-Month-Old Infants Prefer Speech with Raised Formant Frequencies. Infancy, 22(6), 778–789. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benjamin, A., & Slocombe, K. (2018). ‘Who’s a good boy?!’Dogs prefer naturalistic dog-directed speech. Animal Cognition, 21(3), 353–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 51, 411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cristia, A. (2013). Input to language: The phonetics and perception of infant-directed speech. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(3), 157–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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). Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hecht, J., & Horowitz, A. (2015). Seeing dogs: Human preferences for dog physical attributes. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 153–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Treiman, R. (1982). Doggerel: Motherese in a new context. Journal of Child Language, 91, 229–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hollien, H. (2014). Vocal fold dynamics for frequency change. Journal of Voice, 28(4), 395–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Little, A. C. (2012). Manipulation of infant-like traits affects perceived cuteness of infant, adult and cat faces. Ethology, 118(8), 775–782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen formen möglicher erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 5(2), 235–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1970). Studies in animal and human behaviour, Volume 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Masataka, N. (1998). Perception of motherese in Japanese sign language by 6-monthold hearing infants. Developmental Psychology, 341, 241–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGreevy, P. D., & Nicholas, F. W. (1999). Some practical solutions to welfare problems in dog breeding. Animal Welfare, 81, 329–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pettijohn, T. F., & Tesser, A. (2005). Threat and social choice: When eye size matters. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(5), 547–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Price, E. O. (1999). Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65(3), 245–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serpell, J. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – beyond the “cute response”. Society & Animals, 11(1), 83–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sternglanz, S. H., Gray, J. L., & Murakami, M. (1977). Adult preferences for infantile facial features: An ethological approach. Animal Behaviour, 251, 108–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Filep, Lőrinc András, Édua Koós-Hutás, Fanni Hollay, József Topál & Anna Gergely
2026. The effect of familiarity and dog’s body size on female owners’ dog-directed communication. Animal Cognition 29:1 DOI logo
Root-Gutteridge, Holly, Mathilde Massenet, Floriane Fournier, Anna Korzeniowska, Katarzyna Pisanski & David Reby
2025. Vocal communication between humans and animals. In Reference Module in Life Sciences, DOI logo
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 17 march 2026. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue