Cited by 208

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

Range, Friederike, Horn, Lisa, Viranyi, Zsófia, Huber, Ludwig·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

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

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0810957105

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 10.1162/003355399556151 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.007 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1038/428140a · DOI
  4. 10.1038/nature01963 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 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).
  6. 10.1098/rspb.2006.3693 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/0735-7036.120.1.67 · DOI
  8. D Dubreuil, MS Gentile, E Visalberghi, Are capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) inequity averse? Proc R Soc London Ser B 273, 1223–1228 (2006).
  9. 10.1073/pnas.0707182104 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.04.032 · DOI
  11. 10.1126/science.296.5565.69 · DOI
  12. D Mech The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species (Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, 1970).
  13. 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80048-4 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/BF00295072 · DOI
  15. 10.1017/S1367943001001196 · DOI
  16. 10.1093/beheco/8.3.298 · DOI
  17. 10.1098/rspb.2000.1000 · DOI
  18. 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).
  19. 10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00152-6 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00152-6 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.01.012 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.10.014 · DOI
  23. 10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.122 · DOI
  24. 10.1007/s10071-005-0256-0 · DOI
  25. 10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.026 · DOI
  27. 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).
  28. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.396 · DOI
  29. 10.1159/000072439 · DOI
  30. 10.1037/h0075798 · DOI
  31. 10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.175 · DOI
  32. 10.1037/0097-7403.27.4.316 · DOI
  33. 10.1093/biomet/75.4.800 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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