Do Pets Understand Human Pointing? A Research Explainer

What does it mean when a pet follows a point?

When a dog or cat looks toward the place a person indicates, it is tempting to describe the animal as understanding the gesture. Comparative cognition research supports a more careful conclusion: both dogs and cats have used human pointing to locate hidden food in some experimental conditions, but successful point-following does not automatically reveal how the animal interprets the cue.

Research on whether dogs and cats understand human pointing therefore asks more than whether a pet chooses the indicated location. It also asks whether the animal understands pointing as a referential or communicative message—something like “the object you need is over there”—rather than responding to social attention, the situation, or a learned association.

Following a point is not the same as explaining its meaning

Researchers distinguish between behavioural success and cognitive interpretation. A pet can find a reward after a person points without necessarily understanding the gesture in the same referential or mental-state sense that humans might. The animal could be using several sources of information at once: the person’s body orientation, the testing context, prior experience, the presence of food, or an association between a pointing movement and a rewarding location.

That does not make the behaviour unimportant. It shows that the cue can guide the animal’s choices in particular circumstances. But the result alone cannot establish understanding of human intentions, mental states, or the full communicative meaning of pointing. The studies suggest an ability to use the cue; the mechanism behind that ability remains an open question.

What the 2005 dog–cat comparison found

A 2005 comparative study tested dogs and cats in an object-choice experiment involving four types of human pointing cues. Both species were able to locate hidden food, and there was no significant difference in performance between them in that task when the animals had been familiarized with the gesture.

The same study reported a difference in how the animals interacted with people. Cats showed fewer components of attention-getting behaviour than dogs when attempting to indicate the hidden food to an uninformed owner. This suggests a possible distinction between following a human cue and actively directing a person’s attention. It does not, however, show that cats were unable to use the pointing signals.

What the 2023 comparison adds

A newer direct comparison, published in 2023, produced a different pattern. In a distal-pointing task, dogs were less difficult to test and were more successful overall than cats. This finding is relevant, but it should not be treated as a definitive ranking of dogs and cats or as proof of a single, innate dog advantage.

The study authors highlighted several possible influences on the results, including ecology, domestication, individual development, motivation, fatigue, handling, and comfort in the testing environment. Testability matters: an animal that disengages, becomes tired, feels uncomfortable, or is less motivated may have fewer opportunities to demonstrate what it can do. These cautions are especially important when comparing species with different temperaments, experiences, and responses to experimental handling.

Why results vary across studies

These differences help explain why studies can reach different-looking results without necessarily contradicting one another. A task may measure not just whether an animal can use a point, but also whether it is comfortable, attentive, motivated, and familiar with the testing arrangement.

Direct dog–cat comparisons remain limited, and method differences make it inappropriate to apply one experiment’s result to every individual pet.

• The form of the gesture: proximal and distal pointing may not have the same effect.
• How long the gesture lasts: a sustained point may provide different information from a momentary point.
• Social signals: eye contact, vocal cues, or calling the animal’s name can change the testing context.
• Familiarity: experience with the person, the gesture, or the task may affect performance.
• Motivation and participation: interest in food, fatigue, comfort, and willingness to engage can influence results.

What larger dog research shows

A larger study focused on dogs provides another important perspective. The ManyDogs 1 replication involved 20 research sites and 455 dogs. Dogs responded above chance to both ostensive pointing—which included eye contact and the dog’s name—and non-ostensive pointing. There was no significant difference between the two conditions in the tested task.

This result supports dogs’ ability to follow pointing, but it does not settle what the dogs believed the gesture meant. The researchers left open whether dogs interpreted pointing as a social communicative gesture or relied on an associative cue. The study also found that not all pointing styles were equally effective, reinforcing the importance of gesture design and experimental context.

The absence of a significant advantage for ostensive cues is also a reason to avoid saying that eye contact or calling a dog’s name necessarily makes pointing more effective. In this study, those additions did not produce a significant condition difference.

Do dogs treat pointing as a command?

A 2013 study asked whether dogs interpret pointing as an imperative command. The result argued against a simple “obey every point” explanation: dogs ignored a point toward an empty cup when they knew where the food really was. Their response was also not determined by whether the pointing person remained present or was an adult rather than a child.

This flexible behaviour suggests that dogs do not merely treat pointing as an automatic command to choose a location. They may combine social, contextual, and learned associative information. Even so, the study did not resolve the precise meaning dogs assign to pointing. The cue could reflect informative communication, another learned mechanism, or a combination of processes.

What can we conclude?

Taken together, the research supports a moderate conclusion. Dogs and cats can use human pointing to locate hidden food in some conditions. Dogs performed better and were more testable than cats in the 2023 direct comparison, while the 2005 comparison found no significant dog–cat performance difference in its object-choice task. These findings can coexist because the studies used different methods and conditions.

What the evidence does not establish is that either species understands pointing with the full referential, intentional, or mental-state meaning humans may give it. Following a gesture demonstrates a useful behaviour in a particular task; it does not, by itself, reveal the animal’s complete interpretation.

For pet owners, the most evidence-based answer is therefore conditional: a dog or cat may respond meaningfully to a point, but the response should be understood in context. The evidence remains unresolved about whether pets are interpreting a communicative message, using social and contextual information, drawing on learned associations, or combining all of these sources.