Familiarity affects other-regarding preferences in pet dogs

Factors Contributing to Successful Spontaneous Dog-Human Cooperation

Dogs' ability to cooperate with humans is widely acknowledged, but the factors influencing their spontaneous cooperative tendencies are largely unknown. We investigated whether breed function, training experience, and owner-reported social motivation level contribute to spontaneous dog-owner cooperation. Family dogs (N = 100) of three breed groups (non-working dogs, cooperative/independent working breeds) with various training experiences were tested in an 'out-of-reach' task with their owners as their partners, who never directly asked for help during the test. We measured dogs' behaviour along three main components of successful cooperation: paying attention, understanding the problem, and willingness to cooperate. Breed groups had no significant effect on dogs' behaviour. No factor was associated with the behavioural variables related to not understanding the task. Dogs with high training levels and high social motivation showed more attention-related behaviours and were more likely to help the owner (training level and social motivation were not correlated with each other). Our results highlight the importance of training experience and social motivation in dogs' attentiveness and spontaneous cooperativity. This also points to the need for careful sample balancing and experimental procedures that do not rely on specific trained skills.

Caring animals and the ways we wrong them

Many nonhuman animals have the emotional capacities to form caring relationships that matter to them, and for their immediate welfare. Drawing from care ethics, we argue that these relationships also matter as objectively valuable states of affairs. They are part of what is good in this world. However, the value of care is precarious in human-animal interactions. Be it in farming, research, wildlife 'management', zoos, or pet-keeping, the prevention, disruption, manipulation, and instrumentalization of care in animals by humans is ubiquitous. We criticize a narrow conception of welfare that, in practice, tends to overlook non-experiential forms of harm that occur when we interfere with caring animals. Additionally, we point out wrongs against caring animals that are not just unaccounted for but denied by even an expansive welfare perspective: The instrumentalization of care and caring animals in systems of use can occur as a harmless wrong that an approach purely focused on welfare may, in fact, condone. We should therefore adopt an ethical perspective that goes beyond welfare in our dealings with caring animals.

The strain of unfamiliar conspecifics affects stress identification in rats

Humans show distinct social behaviours when we evaluate an individual as being a member of the same group and recognize social similarity to the individual. One example is more accurate identification of emotion in that individual. Our previous studies proposed that rats recognize social similarity to certain strains of unfamiliar rats. It is therefore possible that the strain of unfamiliar conspecifics affects stress identification in rats. Wistar subject rats were allowed to explore a pair of unfamiliar Wistar, Sprague-Dawley (SD), Long-Evans (LE), or Fischer344 (F344) stimulus rats. To induce differences in stress, one of the stimulus rats had received foot shocks immediately before the test. It was found that the subjects showed biased interaction towards the shocked Wistar and SD stimulus rats, but not toward the shocked LE or F344 stimulus rats. Subsequent experiments confirmed that the biased interaction towards the shocked Wistar and SD stimulus rats was driven by stress in these stimulus rats. In addition, the lack of biased interaction towards the shocked LE and F344 stimulus rats did not appear to be due to procedural reasons. The experiment using LE subject rats further confirmed that the shocked LE stimulus rats emitted distress signals. These results suggested that Wistar rats could identify stress in unfamiliar Wistar and SD rats, but not in unfamiliar LE or F344 rats. Therefore, rats appear to recognize social similarity to certain unfamiliar strains of rats.

Caring animals and care ethics

Are there nonhuman animals who behave morally? In this paper I answer this question in the affirmative by applying the framework of care ethics to the animal morality debate. According to care ethics, empathic care is the wellspring of morality in humans. While there have been several suggestive analyses of nonhuman animals as empathic, much of the literature within the animal morality debate has marginalized analyses from the perspective of care ethics. In this paper I examine care ethics to extract its core commitments to what is required for moral care: emotional motivation that enables the intentional meeting of another's needs, and forward-looking responsibility in particular relationships. What is not required, I argue, are metarepresentational capacities or the ability to scrutinize one's reasons for action, and thus being retrospectively accountable. This minimal account of moral care is illustrated by moral practices of parental care seen in many nonhuman animal species. In response to the worry that parental care in nonhuman animals lacks all evaluation and is therefore nonmoral I point to cultural differences in human parenting and to normativity in nonhuman animals.

Adult bonobos show no prosociality in both prosocial choice task and group service paradigm

Previous studies reported contrasting conclusions concerning bonobo prosociality, which are likely due to differences in the experimental design, the social dynamics among subjects and characteristics of the subjects themselves. Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain the occurrence of prosociality in animals: the cooperative breeding hypothesis and the self-domestication hypothesis. While the former predicts low levels of prosociality in bonobos because they are non-cooperative breeders, the latter predicts high levels of prosociality because self-domestication has been proposed to select for high levels of tolerance in this species. Here, we presented a group of thirteen bonobos with two platform food-provisioning tasks: the prosocial choice task (PCT) and the group service paradigm (GSP). The latter has so far never been applied to bonobos. To allow for free choice of participation and partner, we implemented both tasks in a group setting. Like in previous PCT studies, bonobos did not choose the prosocial option more often when a group member could benefit vs not benefit. In the GSP, where food provisioning is costly, only subadult bonobos showed a limited amount of food provisioning, which was much lower than what was previously reported for chimpanzees. In both experiments, adult subjects were highly motivated to obtain rewards for themselves, suggesting that bonobos behaved indifferently to the gains of group members. We suggest that previous positive food-provisioning prosociality results in bonobos are mainly driven by the behaviour of subadult subjects. The lack of prosociality in this study corresponds to the hypothesis that proactive food provisioning co-occurs with cooperative breeding and suggests that proactive prosociality might not be part of the self-domestication syndrome in bonobos.

Dogs fail to reciprocate the receipt of food from a human in a food-giving task

Domestic dogs have been shown to reciprocate help received from conspecifics in food-giving tasks. However, it is not yet known whether dogs also reciprocate help received from humans. Here, we investigated whether dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from humans. In an experience phase, subjects encountered a helpful human who provided them with food by activating a food dispenser, and an unhelpful human who did not provide them with food. Subjects later had the opportunity to return food to each human type, in a test phase, via the same mechanism. In addition, a free interaction session was conducted in which the subject was free to interact with its owner and with whichever human partner it had encountered on that day. Two studies were carried out, which differed in the complexity of the experience phase and the time lag between the experience phase and test phase. Subjects did not reciprocate the receipt of food in either study. Furthermore, no difference was observed in the duration subjects spent in proximity to, or the latency to approach, the two human partners. Although our results suggest that dogs do not reciprocate help received from humans, they also suggest that the dogs did not recognize the cooperative or uncooperative act of the humans during the experience phase. It is plausible that aspects of the experimental design hindered the emergence of any potential reciprocity. However, it is also possible that dogs are simply not prosocial towards humans in food-giving contexts.

Rats do not consider all unfamiliar strains to be equivalent

Humans show distinct social behaviours when we recognise social similarity in opponents that are members of the same social group. However, little attention has been paid to the role of social similarity in non-human animals. In the Wistar subject rats, the presence of an unfamiliar Wistar rat mitigated stress responses, suggesting the importance of social similarity in this stress-buffering phenomenon. We subsequently found that the presence of unfamiliar Sprague-Dawley (SD) or Long-Evans (LE) rats, but not an unfamiliar Fischer 344 (F344) rat, similarly mitigated stress responses in the subject rats. It is therefore possible that the subject rats recognised social similarity to unfamiliar SD and LE rats. In this study, we demonstrated that the Wistar subject rats were capable of categorizing unfamiliar rats based on their strain, and that the Wistar subjects showed a preference for unfamiliar Wistar, SD, and LE rats over F344 rats. However, the subject rats did not show a preference among Wistar, SD, and LE rats. In addition, the results were not due to an aversion to F344 rats, and preference was not affected when anaesthetised rats were presented to the subject rats. The findings suggested that rats recognise social similarity to certain unfamiliar strains of rats.

Carrion Crows and Azure-Winged Magpies Show No Prosocial Tendencies When Tested in a Token Transfer Paradigm

To study the evolution of humans' cooperative nature, researchers have recently sought comparisons with other species. Studies investigating corvids, for example, showed that carrion crows and azure-winged magpies delivered food to group members when tested in naturalistic or simple experimental paradigms. Here, we investigated whether we could replicate these positive findings when testing the same two species in a token transfer paradigm. After training the birds to exchange tokens with an experimenter for food rewards, we tested whether they would also transfer tokens to other birds, when they did not have the opportunity to exchange the tokens themselves. To control for the effects of motivation, and of social or stimulus enhancement, we tested each individual in three additional control conditions. We witnessed very few attempts and/or successful token transfers, and those few instances did not occur more frequently in the test condition than in the controls, which would suggest that the birds lack prosocial tendencies. Alternatively, we propose that this absence of prosociality may stem from the artificial nature and cognitive complexity of the token transfer task. Consequently, our findings highlight the strong impact of methodology on animals' capability to exhibit prosocial tendencies and stress the importance of comparing multiple experimental paradigms.

Prosocial and antisocial choices in a monogamous cichlid with biparental care

Human society is cooperative and characterized by spontaneous prosociality. Comparative studies on endotherm vertebrates suggest that social interdependence causes the evolution of proactive prosociality. To test the generality of this hypothesis, we modify a prosocial choice task for application to the convict cichlid, Amatitlania nigrofasciata, a monogamous fish with biparental care and a strong pair bond. We also affirm that male subjects learn to favor prosocial choices when their mates are the recipients in a neighboring tank. When the neighboring tank is empty, males choose randomly. Furthermore, in the absence of their mates, males behave prosocially toward a stranger female. However, if the mate of the subjects is also visible in the third tank, or if a male is a potential recipient, then subjects make antisocial choices. To conclude, fish may show both spontaneous prosocial and antisocial behaviors according to their social relationships with conspecifics and the overall social context.

Sex-specific effects of cooperative breeding and colonial nesting on prosociality in corvids

The investigation of prosocial behavior is of particular interest from an evolutionary perspective. Comparisons of prosociality across non-human animal species have, however, so far largely focused on primates, and their interpretation is hampered by the diversity of paradigms and procedures used. Here, we present the first systematic comparison of prosocial behavior across multiple species in a taxonomic group outside the primate order, namely the bird family Corvidae. We measured prosociality in eight corvid species, which vary in the expression of cooperative breeding and colonial nesting. We show that cooperative breeding is positively associated with prosocial behavior across species. Also, colonial nesting is associated with a stronger propensity for prosocial behavior, but only in males. The combined results of our study strongly suggest that both cooperative breeding and colonial nesting, which may both rely on heightened social tolerance at the nest, are likely evolutionary pathways to prosocial behavior in corvids.

Azure-winged magpies' decisions to share food are contingent on the presence or absence of food for the recipient

Helping others is a key feature of human behavior. However, recent studies render this feature not uniquely human, and describe discoveries of prosocial behavior in non-human primates, other social mammals, and most recently in some bird species. Nevertheless, the cognitive underpinnings of this prosociality; i.e., whether animals take others’ need for help into account, often remain obscured. In this study, we take a first step in investigating prosociality in azure-winged magpies by presenting them with the opportunity to share highly desired food with their conspecifics i) in a situation in which these conspecifics had no such food, ii) in a situation in which they too had access to that highly desired food, and iii) in an open, base-line, situation where all had equal access to the same food and could move around freely. We find that azure-winged magpies regularly share high-value food items, preferably with, but not restricted to, members of the opposite sex. Most notably, we find that these birds, and specifically the females, seem to differentiate between whether others have food or do not have food, and subsequently cater to that lack. Begging calls by those without food seem to function as cues that elicit the food-sharing, but the response to that begging is condition-dependent. Moreover, analyses on a restricted dataset that excluded those events in which there was begging showed exactly the same patterns, raising the possibility that the azure-winged magpies might truly notice when others have access to fewer resources (even in the absence of vocal cues). This sharing behavior could indicate a high level of social awareness and prosociality that should be further investigated. Further studies are needed to establish the order of intentionality at play in this system, and whether azure-winged magpies might be able to attribute desire states to their conspecifics.

Pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) release their trapped and distressed owners: Individual variation and evidence of emotional contagion

Domestic dogs have assisted humans for millennia. However, the extent to which these helpful behaviors are prosocially motivated remains unclear. To assess the propensity of pet dogs to actively rescue distressed humans without explicit training, this study tested whether sixty pet dogs would release their seemingly trapped owners from a large box. To examine the causal mechanisms that shaped this behavior, the readiness of each dog to open the box was tested in three conditions: 1) the owner sat in the box and called for help (distress test), 2) an experimenter placed high-value food rewards in the box (food test), and 3) the owner sat in the box and calmly read aloud (reading test). Dogs were as likely to release their distressed owner as to retrieve treats from inside the box, indicating that rescuing an owner may be a highly rewarding action for dogs. After accounting for opening ability, dogs released the owner more often when the owner called for help than when the owner read aloud calmly. In addition, opening latencies decreased with test number in the distress test but not the reading test. Thus, rescuing the owner could not be attributed solely to social facilitation, stimulus enhancement, or social contact-seeking behavior. Dogs displayed more stress behaviors in the distress test than in the reading test, and stress scores decreased with test number in the reading test but not in the distress test. This evidence of emotional contagion supports the hypothesis that rescuing the distressed owner was an empathetically-motivated prosocial behavior. Success in the food task and previous (in-home) experience opening objects were both strong predictors of releasing the owner. Thus, prosocial behavior tests for dogs should control for physical ability and previous experience.

Do dogs rescue their owners from a stressful situation? A behavioral and physiological assessment

Rescue behavior is considered a type of pro-social response, defined as a voluntary action directed to benefit another individual who is in a stressful or dangerous situation. In two experiments, we investigated whether dogs would rescue their owners when the person was trapped inside a wooden box and emitted clear signs of stress. The performance of these dogs was compared against that of a control group in which the owners remained calm while trapped. In addition, to assess if training modulated this behavior, we tested a group of dogs from the military trained in search and rescue tasks (Experiment 1). Results showed that dogs opened the box more frequently when the owner pretended to be stressed than when calm. Training shortened latencies to open the door but not the frequency of the behavior. In Experiment 2, we investigated if emotional contagion could be a possible mechanism underlying dogs' rescue responses by measuring dogs' behavior, heart rate, and saliva cortisol level in the stressed and calm conditions, and also controlled for obedience by having the calm owners call their pets while trapped. We replicated the findings of Experiment 1 as more dogs opened the door in the stressed owner condition than in the calm condition. In addition, we observed an increase in heart rate across trials in the stressed condition and a decrease across trials in the calm condition, but no differences in cortisol levels or stress-related behaviors between conditions. In brief, we found evidence that approximately half of the dogs without previous training showed spontaneous rescue behaviors directed to their owners. Neither was this behavior motivated by obedience nor by the motivation to re-establish social contact with the owner. We conclude that emotional contagion is a plausible mechanism underlying dogs' rescue behavior in the present protocol.

Assessing African grey parrots' prosocial tendencies in a token choice paradigm

Prosociality is defined as a voluntary, typically low-cost behaviour that benefits another individual. Social tolerance has been proposed as a potential driver for its evolution, both on the proximate and on the ultimate level. Parrots are an interesting species to study such other-regarding behaviours, given that they are highly social and stand out in terms of relative brain size and cognitive capacity. We tested eight African grey parrots in a dyadic prosocial choice test. They faced a choice between two different tokens, a prosocial (actor and partner rewarded) and a selfish (only actor rewarded) one. We found that the birds did not behave prosocially when one subject remained in the actor role; however, when roles were alternated, the birds' prosocial choices increased. The birds also seemed to reciprocate their partner's choices, given that a contingency between choices was observed. If the food provisioned to the partner was of higher quality than that the actor obtained, actors increased their willingness to provide food to their partner. Nonetheless, the control conditions suggest that the parrots did not fully understand the task's contingencies. In sum, African grey parrots show the potential for prosociality and reciprocity; however, considering their lack of understanding of the contingencies of the particular tasks used in this study, the underlying motivation for the observed behaviour remains to be addressed by future studies, in order to elucidate the phylogenetic distribution of prosociality further.

Similarity between an unfamiliar human and the owner affects dogs' preference for human partner when responding to an unsolvable problem

This study investigates whether dogs are able to differentiate between people according to whether or not they show similarities to their owners. We hypothesized that dogs would show a preference for the "similar" partner when interacting with unfamiliar humans. After having familiarized with two experimenters displaying different degrees of similarity to their owners, dogs (N = 36) participated in a situation where the desired toy object was made inaccessible in order to find out whether they initiate interaction with the two partners differently. Two different types of "similarity cues" were used (either alone or combined with each other): (1) persistent behavioral characteristics (i.e., familiar vs. strange motion pattern and language usage) and (2) an unfamiliar arbitrary group marker (i.e., one of the potential helpers was wearing clothing similar to that worn by the owner). Results show that although dogs payed equal attention to the human partners displaying various types of similarity to their owners during familiarization, they exhibited a visual attention preference for the human whose motion pattern and language usage were similar to their owner's in the inaccessible-toy task. However, there was weak evidence of discrimination based on the arbitrary group marker (clothing). Although dogs' different tendencies to interact with the potential helpers do not necessarily imply an underlying ability to create social categories based on the degree of similarity between the owner and unfamiliar people, these results suggest that functionally human infant-analogue forms of social categorization may have emerged in dogs.

Wolves, but not dogs, are prosocial in a touch screen task

Prosociality is important for initiating cooperation. Interestingly, while wolves rely heavily on cooperation, dogs’ do so substantially less thus leading to the prediction that wolves are more prosocial than dogs. However, domestication hypotheses suggest dogs have been selected for higher cooperation, leading to the opposing prediction- increased prosocial tendencies in dogs. To tease apart these hypotheses we adapted a paradigm previously used with pet dogs to directly compare dogs and wolves. In a prosocial choice task, wolves acted prosocially to in-group partners; providing significantly more food to a pack-member compared to a control where the partner had no access to the food. Dogs did not. Additionally, wolves did not show a prosocial response to non-pack members, in line with previous research that social relationships are important for prosociality. In sum, when kept in the same conditions, wolves are more prosocial than their domestic counterpart, further supporting suggestions that reliance on cooperation is a driving force for prosocial attitudes.

Piloting a new prosociality paradigm in dogs and wolves: The location choice task

The aim of this pilot study was to investigate whether or not dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus) show prosociality in a simple T-maze experiment based on a previous study by Hernandez-Lallement et al. (2015). Prosociality, i.e. "voluntary behaviour that benefits others", was initially thought to be uniquely human and, to trace its origin, has mainly been investigated in non-human primates. More recently however, some non-primate species showed considerable amounts of prosociality, suggesting convergent evolutionary paths. Here we tested if wolves and dogs are prosocial in a novel paradigm and, secondly, whether prosociality in dogs is a by-product of domestication or an ancestral trait shared with wolves. With the exception of one wolf, the current task did not reveal a prosocial response in either species, despite the same subjects showing prosocial tendencies in other tasks. Prosociality has been difficult to experimentally observe and it presents a methodological challenge. We are still at the beginning of this journey in Canids and this study adds another piece to the puzzle of how best to investigate this behaviour.

Pet dogs exhibit social preference for people who synchronize with them: what does it tell us about the evolution of behavioral synchronization?

Humans show greater affiliation with people who are behaviorally synchronized with them but little is known about the impact of synchronization at an interspecific level. We, therefore, explored whether the synchronization of humans with dogs affects dogs' human preferences. Pet dogs were exposed to two unfamiliar persons: one synchronized her walking behavior with them and one walked randomly. In a preference test, molossoids exhibited a clear social preference for the synchronized person, unlike shepherds. We conclude that pet dogs show a greater affiliation with humans who mimic their walking behavior, although genetic selection modulates this propensity. Behavioral synchronization, therefore, acts as a social glue in dogs too. It is the first time that such a human-like ability has been highlighted in domesticated canids at an interspecific level. Implications for the evolution of behavioral synchronization are discussed.

Working dogs transfer different tasks in reciprocal cooperation

Direct reciprocity can establish stable cooperation among unrelated individuals. It is a common assumption of direct reciprocity models that agents exchange like with like, but this is not necessarily true for natural interactions. It is yet unclear whether animals apply direct reciprocity rules when successive altruistic help involves different tasks. Here, we tested whether working dogs transfer help from one to another cooperative task in an iterated prisoner's dilemma paradigm. In our experiment, individual dogs received help to obtain food from a conspecific, which involved a specific task. Subsequently, the focal subject could return received favour by using a different task. Working dogs transferred the cooperative experience received through one task by applying an alternative task when they helped a previously cooperative partner. By contrast, they refrained from helping previously defecting partners. This suggests that dogs realize the cooperative act of a conspecific, which changes their propensity to provide help to that partner by different means. The ability of animals to transfer different tasks when helping a social partner by satisfying the criteria of direct reciprocity might explain the frequent occurrence of reciprocal cooperation in nature.

Inequity aversion in dogs: a review

The study of inequity aversion in animals debuted with a report of the behaviour in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). This report generated many debates following a number of criticisms. Ultimately, however, the finding stimulated widespread interest, and multiple studies have since attempted to demonstrate inequity aversion in various other non-human animal species, with many positive results in addition to many studies in which no response to inequity was found. Domestic dogs represent an interesting case as, unlike many primates, they do not respond negatively to inequity in reward quality but do, however, respond negatively to being unrewarded in the presence of a rewarded partner. Numerous studies have been published on inequity aversion in dogs in recent years. Combining three tasks and seven peer-reviewed publications, over 140 individual dogs have been tested in inequity experiments. Consequently, dogs are one of the best studied species in this field and could offer insights into inequity aversion in other non-human animal species. In this review, we summarise and critically evaluate the current evidence for inequity aversion in dogs. Additionally, we provide a comprehensive discussion of two understudied aspects of inequity aversion, the underlying mechanisms and the ultimate function, drawing on the latest findings on these topics in dogs while also placing these developments in the context of what is known, or thought to be the case, in other non-human animal species. Finally, we highlight gaps in our understanding of inequity aversion in dogs and thereby identify potential avenues for future research in this area.

Norms and the Flexibility of Moral Action

A complex web of social and moral norms governs many everyday human behaviors, acting as the glue for social harmony. The existence of moral norms helps elucidate the psychological motivations underlying a wide variety of seemingly puzzling behavior, including why humans help or trust total strangers. In this review, we examine four widespread moral norms: Fairness, altruism, trust, and cooperation, and consider how a single social instrument-reciprocity-underpins compliance to these norms. Using a game theoretic framework, we examine how both context and emotions moderate moral standards, and by extension, moral behavior. We additionally discuss how a mechanism of reciprocity facilitates the adherence to, and enforcement of, these moral norms through a core network of brain regions involved in processing reward. In contrast, violating this set of moral norms elicits neural activation in regions involved in resolving decision conflict and exerting cognitive control. Finally, we review how a reinforcement mechanism likely governs learning about morally normative behavior. Together, this review aims to explain how moral norms are deployed in ways that facilitate flexible moral choices.

Social status and prenatal testosterone exposure assessed via second-to-fourth digit ratio affect 6-9-year-old children's prosocial choices

Prosocial behaviour (i.e., voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another) seems to be fully developed in children by the age of 6 years. However, questions about which factors modify prosocial behaviour at that age remain understudied. Here we used a resource allocation paradigm to test prosocial behaviour in 6-9-year-old school children. They could decide between a "selfish" (i.e., one sticker for themselves) and a "prosocial" option (i.e., one sticker for themselves and one for the receiver) and we tested whether friendship, social status and prenatal androgen exposure (approximated by the 2nd to 4th digit ratio; 2D:4D) influenced children's prosocial choices. We found that children behaved prosocially, and that their prosocial tendencies were negatively correlated with prenatal androgen exposure; i.e., children with high 2D:4D ratios (reflecting low prenatal androgen exposure) acted more prosocially than children with low 2D:4D ratios. Further, their social status in the classroom influenced their choices: children with fewer interaction partners chose the "prosocial" option more often than more 'popular' children. However, they did so irrespectively of whether they were paired with a recipient or not. Our results highlight the importance of considering social, as well as physiological factors when investigating prosocial behaviour in children.

Dogs (Canis familiaris) stick to what they have learned rather than conform to their conspecifics' behavior

In recent years, an increasing number of studies has investigated majority influence in nonhuman animals. However, due to both terminological and methodological issues, evidence for conformity in nonhuman animals is scarce and controversial. Preliminary evidence suggests that wild birds, wild monkeys, and fish show conformity, that is, forgoing personal information in order to copy the majority. By contrast, chimpanzees seem to lack this tendency. The present study is the first to examine whether dogs (Canis familiaris) show conformity. Specifically, we tested whether dogs conform to a majority of conspecifics rather than stick to what they have previously learned. After dogs had acquired a behavioral preference via training (i.e., shaping), they were confronted with counter-preferential behavior of either no, one or three conspecifics. Traditional frequentist analyses show that the dogs’ behavior did not differ significantly between the three conditions. Complementary Bayesian analyses suggest that our data provide moderate evidence for the null hypothesis. In conclusion, our results suggest that dogs stick to what they have learned rather than conform to the counter-preferential behavior of others. We discuss the possible statistical and methodological limitations of this finding. Furthermore, we take a functional perspective on conformity and discuss under which circumstances dogs might show conformity after all.

Working dogs cooperate among one another by generalised reciprocity

Cooperation by generalised reciprocity implies that individuals apply the decision rule "help anyone if helped by someone". This mechanism has been shown to generate evolutionarily stable levels of cooperation, but as yet it is unclear how widely this cooperation mechanism is applied among animals. Dogs (Canis familiaris) are highly social animals with considerable cognitive potential and the ability to differentiate between individual social partners. But although dogs can solve complex problems, they may use simple rules for behavioural decisions. Here we show that dogs trained in an instrumental cooperative task to provide food to a social partner help conspecifics more often after receiving help from a dog before. Remarkably, in so doing they show no distinction between partners that had helped them before and completely unfamiliar conspecifics. Apparently, dogs use the simple decision rule characterizing generalised reciprocity, although they are probably capable of using the more complex decision rule of direct reciprocity: "help someone who has helped you". However, generalized reciprocity involves lower information processing costs and is therefore a cheaper cooperation strategy. Our results imply that generalised reciprocity might be applied more commonly than direct reciprocity also in other mutually cooperating animals.

Task Differences and Prosociality; Investigating Pet Dogs' Prosocial Preferences in a Token Choice Paradigm

Prosociality has received increasing interest by non-human animal researchers since the initial discoveries that suggested it is not a uniquely human trait. However, thus far studies, even within the same species, have not garnered conclusive results. A prominent suggestion for this disparity is the effect methodology can have on prosocial responses in animals. We recently found evidence of prosociality in domestic dogs towards familiar conspecifics using a bar-pulling paradigm, in which a subject could pull a rope to deliver food to its partner. Therefore, the current study aimed to assess whether dogs would show a similar response in a different paradigm, based on the token exchange task paradigm frequently used with primates. In this task, dogs had the option to touch a token with their nose that delivered a reward to an adjacent receiver enclosure, which contained a familiar conspecific, a stranger or no dog at all. Crucially, we also included a social facilitation control condition, whereby the partner (stranger/familiar) was present but unable to access the food. We found that the familiarity effect remained consistent across tasks, with dogs of both the bar-pulling and token choice experiments providing more food to familiar partners than in a non-social control and providing less food to stranger partners than this same control. However, in contrast to our previous bar-pulling experiment, we could not exclude social facilitation as an underlying motive in the current task. We propose this difference in results between tasks may be related to increased task complexity in the token choice paradigm, making it harder for dogs to discriminate between the test and social facilitation conditions. Overall our findings suggest that subtle methodological changes can have an impact on prosocial behaviours in dogs and highlights the importance of controlling for social facilitation effects in such experiments.

Dogs Do Not Show Pro-social Preferences towards Humans

Pro-social behaviors are defined as voluntary actions that benefit others. Comparative studies have mostly focused on investigating the presence of pro-sociality across species in an intraspecific context. Taken together, results on both primates and non-primate species indicate that reliance on cooperation may be at work in the selection and maintenance of pro-social sentiments. Dogs appear to be the ideal model when investigating a species’ propensity for pro-sociality in an interspecific context because it has been suggested that as a consequence of domestication, they evolved an underlying temperament encouraging greater propensity to cooperate with human partners. In a recent study, using a food delivery paradigm, dogs were shown to preferentially express pro-social choices toward familiar compared to unfamiliar conspecifics. Using the same set-up and methods in the current study, we investigated dogs’ pro-social preferences toward familiar and unfamiliar human partners. We found that dogs’ pro-social tendencies did not extend to humans and the identity of the human partners did not influence the rate of food delivery. Interestingly, dogs tested with their human partners spent more time gazing at humans, and did so for longer after food consumption had ended than dogs tested with conspecific partners in the initial study. To allow comparability between results from dogs tested with a conspecific and a human partner, the latter were asked not to communicate with dogs in any way. However, this lack of communication from the human may have been aversive to dogs, leading them to cease performing the task earlier compared to the dogs paired with familiar conspecifics in the prior study. This is in line with previous findings suggesting that human communication in such contexts highly affects dogs’ responses. Consequently, we encourage further studies to examine dogs’ pro-social behavior toward humans taking into consideration their potential responses both with and without human communication.

Critical issues in experimental studies of prosociality in non-human species

Prosociality and acts of altruism are defined as behaviours which benefit another with either no gain or some immediate cost to the self. To understand the evolutionary origins of these behaviours, in recent years, studies have extended to primate species; however, studies on non-primates are still scarce. In light of the fact that phylogenetic closeness to humans does not appear to correlate with prosocial tendencies, but rather differences in the propensity towards prosociality may be linked to allomaternal care or collaborative foraging, it appears that convergent selection pressures may be at work in the evolution of prosociality. It would hence seem particularly important to extend such studies to species outside the primate clade, to allow for comparative hypothesis testing of the factors affecting the evolution of prosocial behaviours. In the current review, we focus on the experimental paradigms which have been used so far (i.e. the prosocial choice task, helping paradigms and food-sharing tests) and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each method. In line with the aim of encouraging a broader comparative approach to the topic of prosociality, particular emphasis is placed on the methodological issues that need to be taken into account. We conclude that although a number of the paradigms used so far may be successfully applied to non-primate species, there is a need to simplify the cognitive demands of the tasks and ensure task comprehension to allow for a 'fair' comparative approach of prosocial tendencies across species.