CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inequity Aversion Negatively Affects Tolerance and Contact-Seeking Behaviours towards Partner and Experimenter

Brucks, Désirée, Essler, Jennifer L., Marshall-Pescini, Sarah, Range, Friederike·2016·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0153799PMC PMC4833338
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0153799

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 [59]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. SF Brosnan, 2013, Justice- and fairness-related behaviors in nonhuman primates, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 110, 10416, 10.1073/pnas.1301194110 · DOI
  2. SF Brosnan, 2014, Evolution of Responses to (Un)fairness, Science, 346, 10.1126/science.1251776 · DOI · Paper page
  3. SF Brosnan, 2003, Monkeys reject unequal pay, Nature, 425, 297, 10.1038/nature01963 · DOI · Paper page
  4. SF Brosnan, 2005, Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees, Proc R Soc London Ser B, 272, 253, 10.1098/rspb.2004.2947 · DOI · Paper page
  5. LM Hopper, 2013, The Ontogeny of Social Comparisons in Rhesus Macaques (Macaca mulatta), Int J Primatol, 2, 10000109
  6. CAF Wascher, 2013, Behavioral responses to inequity in reward distribution and working effort in crows and ravens, PLoS One, 8, e56885, 10.1371/journal.pone.0056885 · DOI
  7. J Bräuer, 2006, Are apes really inequity averse?, Proc R Soc London Ser B, 273, 3123, 10.1098/rspb.2006.3693 · DOI
  8. A Horowitz, 2012, Fair is Fine, but More is Better: Limits to Inequity Aversion in the Domestic Dog, Soc Justice Res, 25, 195, 10.1007/s11211-012-0158-7 · DOI
  9. PG Roma, 2006, Capuchin Monkeys, Inequity Aversion, and the Frustration Effect, J Comp Psychol, 120, 67, 10.1037/0735-7036.120.1.67 · DOI
  10. A Silberberg, 2009, Does inequity aversion depend on a frustration effect? A test with capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella), Anim Cogn, 12, 505, 10.1007/s10071-009-0211-6 · DOI
  11. J Bräuer, 2012, Fairness in Non-human Primates?, Soc Justice Res, 25, 256, 10.1007/s11211-012-0159-6 · DOI
  12. J Bräuer, 2009, Are Apes Inequity Averse? New Data on the Token-Exchange Paradigm, Am J Primatol, 71, 175, 10.1002/ajp.20639 · DOI
  13. L Mech, 2003, Wolves: Behaviour, Ecology, Conservation, 10.7208/chicago/9780226516981.001.0001 · DOI
  14. DR MacNulty, 2014, Influence of Group Size on the Success of Wolves Hunting Bison, PLoS One, 9, e112884, 10.1371/journal.pone.0112884 · DOI
  15. S Creel, 1995, Communal hunting and pack size in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus, Anim Behav, 50, 1325, 10.1016/0003-3472(95)80048-4 · DOI
  16. I Bailey, 2013, Group hunting within the Carnivora: physiological, cognitive and environmental influences on strategy and cooperation, Behav Ecol Sociobiol, 67, 1, 10.1007/s00265-012-1423-3 · DOI
  17. F Range, 2009, The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 106, 340, 10.1073/pnas.0810957105 · DOI · Paper page
  18. SF Brosnan, 2010, Mechanisms underlying responses to inequitable outcomes in chimpanzees, (Pan troglodytes), Anim Behav, 79, 1229, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.019 · DOI
  19. M van Wolkenten, 2007, Inequity responses of monkeys modified by effort, Proc Natl Acad Sci, 104, 18854, 10.1073/pnas.0707182104 · DOI
  20. KA Cronin, 2008, The effects of unequal reward distributions on cooperative problem solving by cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus, Anim Behav, 75, 245, 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.04.032 · DOI
  21. JJM Massen, 2012, Inequity aversion in relation to effort and relationship quality in long-tailed Macaques (Macaca fascicularis), Am J Primatol, 74, 145, 10.1002/ajp.21014 · DOI
  22. SF Brosnan, 2006, Partner ‘s Behavior, Not Reward Distribution, Determines Success in an Unequal Cooperative Task in Capuchin Monkeys, Am J Primatol, 68, 713, 10.1002/ajp.20261 · DOI
  23. AP Melis, 2009, Chimpanzees coordinate in a negotiation game, Evol Hum Behav, 30, 381, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.05.003 · DOI
  24. M Bentosela, 2009, Incentive contrast in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), J Comp Psychol, 123, 125, 10.1037/a0013340 · DOI
  25. M Pillutla, 1996, Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers, Organ Behav Hum Decis Process, 68, 208, 10.1006/obhd.1996.0100 · DOI
  26. AG Sanfey, 2003, The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game, Science, 300, 1755, 10.1126/science.1082976 · DOI · Paper page
  27. T Osumi, 2009, Cardiac responses predict decisions: an investigation of the relation between orienting response and decisions in the ultimatum game, Int J Psychophysiol, 74, 74, 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.07.007 · DOI
  28. A Essner, 2013, Validity and reliability of Polar® RS800CX heart rate monitor, measuring heart rate in dogs during standing position and at trot on a treadmill, Physiol Behav, 114–115, 1, 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.03.002 · DOI
  29. VSM Jonckheer-Sheehy, 2012, Validation of a Polar® human heart rate monitor for measuring heart rate and heart rate variability in adult dogs under stationary conditions, J Vet Behav, 7, 205, 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.006 · DOI
  30. I Schöberl, 2015, Algorithm-supported visual error correction (AVEC) of heart rate measurements in dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, Behav Res Methods, 47, 1356, 10.3758/s13428-014-0546-z · DOI
  31. AP Lamb, 2010, Correlation of heart rate to body weight in apparently normal dogs, J Vet Cardiol, 12, 107, 10.1016/j.jvc.2010.04.001 · DOI
  32. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 1.1–7. 2014. · DOI · Paper page
  33. SF Brosnan, 2010, Competing demands of prosociality and equity in monkeys, Evol Hum Behav, 31, 279, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brucks, D., Essler, J. L., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Range, F.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2016-04-15
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
e0153799
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0153799
PMC
PMC4833338
Cited by
28
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • Austrian Science Fund (P24840)
  • European Research Council (311870)

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