Rhetorical Strategies in “Investigating Jealous Behavior in Dogs”
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27251-1)
The scientific report called “Investigating Jealous Behaviour in Dogs” was written by several authors including Judit Abdai et al., which was published in journal Scientific Reports on 11 June 2018. Scientific Reports is an open-access, multidisciplinary, and global journal from Nature, which aims at publishing scientifically valid and technically sound articles, providing academic support worldwide. Hence, the intended audience can be individuals who are in need of doing researches about animals’ jealous behaviors, including those who are interested in this industry and would like to seek references for their academic essay. People who love reading scientific reports can also be the audience group. The authors of this study are from ” the Department of Ethology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, H-1117, Hungary and MTA-ELTE Comparative Ethology Research Group” (Abdai et al.). People adopt convincing, concrete, and objective diction for the sake of illustrating the fact in the intended audience. The study mainly displays that dogs have jealous behavior, which is functionally similar to children under similar circumstances, excluding other explanations such as territoriality and dominance rank. The purpose is to prove that jealous behavior exists in dogs. The paragraphs of this report are orderly and specific. In this scientific report, the authors first represent the response of questionnaires to demonstrate dogs’ jealous behavior. In the meantime, the hypothesis that the possibility of territoriality is put forward. What is more, the authors take tests using different test partners to examine the authenticity of dogs’ jealous behavior.
The authors begin the introduction section with a centrality claim that social relationships and behaviors related are adaptive. Then, the authors give a common statement that children under two years old do not have jealous behavior, but they also make a counter-claim using the previous study result of Draghi-Lorenz et al., “It has been assumed that children younger than two years of age……however, recent findings suggest that infants from six months of age already display jealous behaviour. Draghi-Lorenz et al. critically reviewed the most important theories about the underlying mental mechanisms that may be required for the appearance of secondary emotions” (Abdai et al.). Next, the authors indicate a gap, “There have been only a limited number of studies investigating jealous behaviour in non-human species” (Abdai et al.). In the third paragraph of the section, the authors use the previous study result to demonstrate dog have jealous behavior. Also, the authors also use lots of logical connectors like “thus” in this section. In the following process, the authors do not directly introduce the aim, but they announce the present research, “Here we aimed to examine whether dogs show jealous behaviour when the owner gives attention solely to a social test partner” (Abdai et al.). It is a human agent. At last, the authors introduce the variables and the way of the test.
In this scientific report, the authors use methods, such as questionnaires and tests, to further demonstrate the efficiency of their argument that dogs have jealous behaviors, including the use of term definitions, logos, and ethos. Firstly, Abdai et al. adopt definitions aiming to the general audience, whose purpose is to make them have a better understanding of professional terms. For instance, according to the authors, “The function of jealous behaviour is to facilitate the maintenance of an important social relationship that is threatened by a third-party, a rival individual……a rival individual” (Abdai et al.). It clearly narrates the definition of jealous behavior. The audience can have a more in-depth understanding of jealous behavior and its function, which can help people better understand whether dogs have jealous behavior based on the definition. If people have an idea of what jealous behavior and the function are, they will have a better idea of whether dogs have jealous behavior or not, thus having a better understanding of the report. Secondly, the authors use strong appeals to logos with a lot of quotations and factual experimental statistics to address the logic, rationality, and authority of this report. At the same time, a great number of indicated meanings and reasons are provided in the whole report. As the authors claim, “Inter-coder reliability for all variables were tested on a random subsample of the recordings (20% of the subjects) ……However, we excluded the duration of touch (0.649) and motion (0.592) from the analysis due to the low alpha values” (Abdai et al.). The figures and data record certificate that test is precise, thus reflecting the significance of factual data and statistics in the scientific report. What is more, the authors use the results of Friedman’s test to further show the possibility of dog’s jealous behavior. At last, in the section of “methods” in this report, the authors introduce that they have a questionnaire concerning the topic. This can well demonstrate that some facts are from readers’ actual experience. For instance, “(1) How jealous do you think your dog is compare to the average dog? …… (3) Where does your dog get jealous? (at home, at unfamiliar places; on a scale from 1 to 5)” (Abdai et al.). These questions can make the argument more persuasive. As a result, the authors’ logos appeals of statistics, relevant scientific terms, and expert testimony are quite convincing, benefiting the enhancement of argument and evoking readers’ cognitive and rational responses toward the argument that dogs have jealous behavior. All in all, the use of sufficient logos can enhance the logic of the study, clearing shedding lights on the argument. Thirdly, this report uses effective ethos in this report, including the publication source, author affiliation, and the use of words. This scientific report was published in the journal Scientific Reports which focuses on assessing the validity of the scientific paper. It suggests that the audience can be aware of the article is trustworthy. The affiliation of the authors enhances the credibility and appeal to the ethos, building the argument. As the report mentions, these authors are from the professional research group of the Department of Ethology, Eötvös Loránd University. It describes that the authors aim at exploring knowledge and belong to the professional group. At this point, it can give the general audience a sense of reliability, thus strengthening the credibility of this report. In the third place, the language used in this report is concrete. As an illustration, words like “suggest,” “manifest,” and “describe” are strong verbs analyzing the result, which strongly explains the efficiency of language use, enhancing the effect of ethos in this report. In short, the application of the ethos is developed by means of using scientific terminology, which helps the audience see the credibility of this report.
In the section of results, the authors further illustrate their argument by means of using ample figures and specific analysis showing their test results. The authors introduce three principal components which are Interaction-oriented Behaviour (PC I), Owner-oriented Behaviour (PC II) and Test Partner-oriented Behaviour (Abdai et al.). Also, they represent four variables which are the unfamiliar dog, familiar dog, unfamiliar object, and familiar object. As an illustration, the authors first conclude the data when dogs have different responses in Table 2 and Figure 1. It can be seen that there is a huge difference. As the author claim, “Subjects showed less Interaction-oriented Behaviour in the Familiar object condition than in case of other test partners, except for the Unfamiliar dog condition” (Abdai et al). It is acknowledged that dogs will have more PC I when there is an unfamiliar dog, which shows the existence of jealous behavior. Table 3 shows contrast estimates (B ± SE) and t values, and the data of Table 3 and Figure 2 point out that dogs have more PC II when are with familiar dogs, which is a shred of evidence that dogs have jealous behaviors. In addition to that, the authors use the results of the Friedman test to enhance the agreement. According to the authors, “Results of the Friedman test show that dogs tried to interrupt the owner-test partner interaction more often in case of social, compared to non-social test partners (N = 22, χ2(4) = 30.817, p < 0.001)" (Abdai et al.). On the basis of this statement, both academic research study and data function, which is conducive to expressing that dogs are inclined to have jealous behavior.
The authors support their argument that dogs have jealous behaviors by means of representing factual test data, which can be seen as the most direct result of the finding. For instance, they do a series of test among familiar dogs, unfamiliar dogs, familiar objects, and unfamiliar object, identifying and recording the data of CP I, II, and III. At this point, it can be concluded that dogs have jealous behaviors based on these data. All in all, this report is an effective one to demonstrate that jealous behavior exists among dogs.
After completing this assignment, I have obtained new insights into dogs' behavior. Dogs are similar to children, and they do have jealous behavior. Also, I have learned that the types of social test partner play an essential role in the study of dogs’ jealous behavior. Their jealous behavior is not triggered by the territorial aggression and dominance rank, which is related to social test partner. All in all, this report is conducive to helping the audience better understand dogs’ jealous behaviors.

Works Cited
Abdai, Judit, et al. “Investigating Jealous Behaviour in Dogs.” Scientific Reports, 11 June 2018, Vol. 8. No. 8911.