If you are going to claim that Bunny the Dog etc are examples of ā The Clever Hansā effect, you are going to actually back that up somehow rather than merely asserting it. And it is very unclear how it could possibly be an example of The Clever Hans Effect.
For the peanut gallery, Clever Hans was a horse that could supposedly do math, he was asked simple math problems and then would stomp his hoof a number of times equal to the answer. He wasnāt actually doing math though, he was just stomping his feat continuously until his owner gave off micro-expressions that indicated he was satisfied with the answer, and then stopping.
Maybe you could suggest, while wandering around the buttons that the dogs( or pigs or cats etc) are responding to micro-expressions from there owners, and are stopping at certain intervals and pushing certain buttons in response to that, or are tracking there owners eye movement to certain buttons. But none of that would explain why the animal is going to the buttons in the first place. Clever Hans preformed a certain behavior in response to prompting by his master, Bunny is interacting with the buttonās unprompted of her own volition. Itās not the same situation.
āClever Hansā on its own is not substantial enough to explain the phenomenon of Bunny etc, itās a dumb thought terminating dismissal from a half-remembered case study because you saw an animal communicating with its owner by tapping its feet and decided that was enough to connect two dots together.