Cited by 63Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAesthetic Perception and AnalysisEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Seeing Dogs: Human Preferences for Dog Physical Attributes

Hecht, Julie, Horowitz, Alexandra·2015·Anthrozoös

Abstract

This study systematically investigated peoples' preferences for dog physical attributes in images of real-life dogs. Participants (n = 124) completed an aesthetic-preference test wherein they viewed 80 image pairs of mixed-breed adult dogs and were asked which image they “liked best.” In each image pair, the two dog images appeared to be nearly identical, but unbeknownst to participants, the images differed slightly in that one physical characteristic had been manipulated. By altering a single physical characteristic in each image pair, participant preference for each of 14 different physical attributes could be investigated over the course of the study. The feature manipulations examined theories relating to Kindchenschema (an infantile appearance, per Konrad lorenz), ostensive human similarity, the process of domestication, as well as differences in attribute size and symmetry. The results showed that participants preferred some features associated with the infant schema—large eyes and wider-set eyes. They also preferred certain human-like attributes: colored irises and a distinct upturn of the commissure, seeming to capture a smile. By contrast, participants did not reveal a preference for physical characteristics relating to feature size, symmetry or the process of domestication. The findings suggest that identifiable physical attributes of domestic dogs have aesthetic value and, additionally, that human preferences for aesthetic differences can be systematically investigated. Given that people attend to and care about the way dogs look, the effects of particular physical attributes on peoples' preferences merit investigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2752/089279315x14129350722217

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence suggests that physical appearance outperforms health considerations when acquiring a dog.

    “Evidence suggests that physical appearance outperforms health considerations when acquiring a dog [104,105].”

    From Ethical Concerns about Fashionable Dog Breeding (2024) · cites this paper as [104]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hecht, J., & Horowitz, A.
Affiliations
  • City University of New York (US)
  • Barnard College (US)
Corresponding author
Hecht, Julie
Venue
Anthrozoös
Published
2015-03
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
153-163
ISSN
  • 0892-7936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-0377
OpenAlex
W2049981898
Cited by
63
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Anthrozoös (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
aesthetic preference, human-dog relationship, human-likeness, domestication, facial symmetry, feature size, eye size, smiling, mixed-breed dogs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review