The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs
Abstract
One crucial element for the evolution of cooperation may be the sensitivity to others' efforts and payoffs compared with one's own costs and gains. Inequity aversion is thought to be the driving force behind unselfish motivated punishment in humans constituting a powerful device for the enforcement of cooperation. Recent research indicates that non-human primates refuse to participate in cooperative problem-solving tasks if they witness a conspecific obtaining a more attractive reward for the same effort. However, little is known about non-primate species, although inequity aversion may also be expected in other cooperative species. Here, we investigated whether domestic dogs show sensitivity toward the inequity of rewards received for giving the paw to an experimenter on command in pairs of dogs. We found differences in dogs tested without food reward in the presence of a rewarded partner compared with both a baseline condition (both partners rewarded) and an asocial control situation (no reward, no partner), indicating that the presence of a rewarded partner matters. Furthermore, we showed that it was not the presence of the second dog but the fact that the partner received the food that was responsible for the change in the subjects' behavior. In contrast to primate studies, dogs did not react to differences in the quality of food or effort. Our results suggest that species other than primates show at least a primitive version of inequity aversion, which may be a precursor of a more sophisticated sensitivity to efforts and payoffs of joint interactions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Dogs are sensitive to unequal treatment and may cooperate less if they observe that a conspecific may receive more treats, praise or attention for similar compliance.
“In such cases, handlers should be aware that dogs are sensitive to unequal treatment and may cooperate less if they observe that a conspecific may receive more treats, praise or attention for similar compliance.”
From Therapy Dog Welfare Revisited: A Review of the Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [58]
Range et al. found that unequally rewarded dogs refused participation in a paw lifting task earlier, hesitated longer to respond to human commands and exhibited more stress-related behaviors.
“The data highlighted that unequally rewarded dogs refused participation in a paw lifting task earlier, hesitated longer to respond to human commands and exhibited more stress-related behaviors [58].”
From Therapy Dog Welfare Revisited: A Review of the Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [58]
Citations
Cites
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195106237.001.0001 · Cited by 1,491
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- 10.1162/003355399556151 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.007 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/428140a · DOI
- 10.1038/nature01963 · DOI · Paper page
- SF Brosnan, HC Schiff, FBM Waal, Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proc R Soc London Ser B 1560, 253–258 (2004).
- 10.1098/rspb.2006.3693 · DOI
- 10.1037/0735-7036.120.1.67 · DOI
- D Dubreuil, MS Gentile, E Visalberghi, Are capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) inequity averse? Proc R Soc London Ser B 273, 1223–1228 (2006).
- 10.1073/pnas.0707182104 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.04.032 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.296.5565.69 · DOI
- D Mech The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species (Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, 1970).
- 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80048-4 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00295072 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1367943001001196 · DOI
- 10.1093/beheco/8.3.298 · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2000.1000 · DOI
- L Boitani, F Francisci, P Ciucci, Population biology and ecology of feral dogs in central Italy. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, ed J Serpell (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp. 218–245 (1995).
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00152-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00152-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.01.012 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.10.014 · DOI
- 10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.122 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10071-005-0256-0 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.026 · DOI
- Z Virányi, F Range, L Huber, Attentiveness toward others and social learning in domestic dogs. Learning from Animals?, eds L Röska-Hardy, EM Neumann-Held (Psychology Press, London, 2008).
- 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.396 · DOI
- 10.1159/000072439 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0075798 · DOI
- 10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.175 · DOI
- 10.1037/0097-7403.27.4.316 · DOI
- 10.1093/biomet/75.4.800 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Doris, J. M., & The Moral Psychology Research Group (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.001.0001 · Cited by 227
A hypothesis of the co-evolution of cooperation and responses to inequity
Brosnan, S. F. (2011) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2011.00043 · Cited by 134
Therapy Dog Welfare Revisited: A Review of the Literature
Glenk, L. M., & Foltin, S. (2021) · Veterinary Sciences · doi:10.3390/vetsci8100226 · Cited by 71
Tactful animals: How the study of touch can inform the animal morality debate
Monsó, S., & Wrage, B. (2021) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2020.1859100 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Range, F., Horn, L., Viranyi, Z., & Huber, L.
- Affiliations
- Department of Neurobiology and Cognition Research, University of Vienna, A-1091 Wien, Austria;
- Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, A-3422 Altenberg, Austria; and
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2009-01-06
- Volume
- 106
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 340-345
- ISSN
- 0027-8424
- 1091-6490
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
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