Dogs will go on strike over unfair treats
First nonprimates tested for a sense of fair pay, which is key to cooperation
font_down font_up Text Size
access
UNFAIR SHAKESA dog refuses to shake hands with a kneeling researcher in a test for sensitivity to unfair rewards. Dogs that didn't get snacks for their handshakes soon stopped cooperating if a neighbor repeatedly scored sausages after offering a paw. View a sequence of the experiment below.Friederike Range

If Congress literally went to the dogs, there could still be growling over corporate bailout requests from highly compensated executives.

Dogs are the first animals outside primates that have passed an experimental test for an aversion to inequity. In other words, dogs have a sense of whether payment for work is fair, says Friederike Range, of the University of Vienna in Austria.

Dogs got increasingly fidgety and finally stopped shaking hands when a researcher repeatedly failed to supply rewards for a trick but gave another handshaking dog bread bits, Range says. The dogs cooperated longer, though, if their neighbors didn’t get a snack either, Range and her colleagues report online December 8 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Biologists interested in the evolution and maintenance of cooperative behavior have theorized that a critical factor for cooperative behavior is this aversion to inequity, Range says. It keeps slackers from eventually overwhelming the system.

Anthropologists and economists studying cooperation in people “have had a tendency to declare inequity aversion, and the associated sense of fairness, to be uniquely human,” says Frans de Waal of Emory University’s Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. “So it is important to show that it is a profound reaction, of which we also find signs in other animals.”

Some form of this aversion could show up in all animals that show strong cooperative behavior, de Waal predicts. “You’d expect it in canines, but perhaps not in domestic cats, which are solitary hunters.”

Figuring out clear-cut tests for determining this quality in animals has stirred up a lot of debate. De Waal, among other researchers, has worked with pairs of primates. So far, those studies have proposed evidence of inequity aversion in chimps, capuchin monkeys and cottontop tamarins.

To test dogs, Range recruited 21 pairs of well-trained dogs that either lived together or knew each other well. A familiar human companion stood with a lone dog or a pair as a researcher asked for a paw to shake. Range and her colleagues ran the dogs through a series of tests, establishing such things as how long each dog on its own kept shaking hands without rewards. Dogs cooperated longer without a reward when working solo than when they could see a rewarded partner, Range says.

This experiment tested the dogs’ sense of payment for work, she emphasizes. It’s different from a dog’s objection to attention lavished on other dogs. Also, Range says, the experiment tests only the selfish version of fair pay. What she looked for was whether a dog objected to its own lack of compensation. A full sense of fairness as people use the word implies objecting also to unfair compensation for others.

Quality of compensation didn’t seem to matter to the dogs, Range says. All the dog owners told her that their animals preferred sausage to the test’s alternative reward of bread. Yet dogs rewarded with bread bits didn’t rebel when a neighbor scored sausage.

“I wonder what would have happened if dogs had been tested who didn’t know each other,” de Waal says. Monkeys and apes react more strongly to a stranger’s unfair bonus than to a pal’s.

Range, herself the human companion of a border collie, predicts her results won’t surprise some people. Many dog owners will think, ‘well, yes,’” Range says. Just having a sense that pets behave in complex ways isn’t enough for science, though, she says. Researchers have to devise objective tests.


A sequence showing the experiment in progress. Panels 1-3 show the reaction/reward experience between two dogs from the study.

FAIR TEST

To see if dogs have a sense when pay for work is fair, a kneeling researcher asks for a paw to shake (left - 1st panel). If that dog doesn't get treats for repeated handshakes, but sees one of its pals rewarded with a bit of bread or sausage (middle - 2nd panel), the unrewarded animal eventually goes on strike, refusing to shake hands any more (right - 3rd panel). Yet dogs cooperated longer when the neighbor wasn't getting a reward either.

Friederike Range


Found in: Biology, Life and Zoology
Comments 3
  • If the experiment was, indeed, undertaken as stated above, there is likely flawed methodology involving the "Clever Hans Effect."

    Clever Hans was a horse that was claimed to have been able to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.

    After formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

    Referring to paragraph 4, the proper term, in this context, should be "hypothesized" not "theorized."
    Alan McCright Alan McCright
    Dec. 8, 2008 at 1:17pm
  • This is not just a "Clever Hans Effect." My own dogs (and human toddlers for that matter!) are and were quite sensitive to this sort of thing, even when I wasn't. I'd set down treats for two rugrats (human or beastie) and one would quickly snatch up both. The one left out would soon refuse to cooperate in whatever behavior I thought I was rewarding until I caught onto what the little thief was doing. Because I was a bit slow on the uptake, I was not cuing any clever Hans in either case. I was too distracted by trying to simultaneously keep up with doing dishes and laundry, sweep and mop, collect toys from their usual floor-wide array, battle ant invasions, get meals ready for larger folk, get cleaned up and dressed myself, etc., etc. Hans is a lot cleverer than we tend to give him credit for, whether he's a human two-year-old, a capuchin monkey, a grown chimpanzee, or a 12-year-old Westie terrier.
    Diana Gainer Diana Gainer
    Dec. 10, 2008 at 9:40am
  • Hi Diana.

    I am not at all saying that animals can not be clever nor that they have no feelings--emotions. We have an Australian Shepherd, two Siamese cats and three horses--all quite emotional and, at times, easily miffed--and such thoughts would never occur to me.

    If you will read my comment again, carefully, you will see I am speaking of the conditions underwhich the experiment was conducted. For example, the dogs' owners should not have been a part of the experiment.

    Again, if the experiment was undertaken as stated above, it does not seem to conform to the standards which I would consider good science.

    My comment is a criticism of the methodology alone, and has nothing to do with the intelligence, emotions, behavior--or lack thereof--of the test subjects themselves, whether they be dogs, horses, humans or rocks.
    Alan McCright Alan McCright
    Dec. 12, 2008 at 10:26am
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Citations & References:
seperator
  • Friederike Range et al. 2008. The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs. PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.0810957105.
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator