Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39100737›Full record

ArticleEthology : formerly Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie2024

Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?

Jim McGetrick, Leona Fux, Johannes Schullern-Schrattenhofen, Jean-Loup Rault, Friederike Range

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethology : formerly Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jim McGetrickDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5468-934X
Leona FuxDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Johannes Schullern-SchrattenhofenDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Jean-Loup RaultInstitute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6015-8318
Friederike RangeDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3127-5536

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 30704Austrian Science Fund FWF W 1262
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reciprocity is one of the most prominent explanations for the evolution of stable cooperation. Although reciprocity has been studied for decades in numerous animal species and behavioural contexts, its underlying proximate mechanisms remain unclear. Domestic dogs provide a useful model species for the study of proximate mechanisms, though there are currently inconsistent findings regarding dogs' propensity to reciprocate. Here, we investigated whether, after minimal training, pet dogs would press a button, which remotely controlled a food dispenser, to deliver food to an enclosure occupied by a helpful conspecific that had provided them with food or an unhelpful conspecific that had not provided them with food. We included an asocial control condition in which the enclosure was unoccupied and a social facilitation control in which the food delivery mechanism was non-functional. Whether subjects were familiar with the helpful and unhelpful conspecifics was also varied. In addition, to investigate potential mechanisms underlying reciprocity, we measured subjects salivary oxytocin concentration before and after they experienced the helpful and unhelpful acts. There was no effect of the previous helpfulness or the familiarity of the partner on the number of times subjects pressed the button. However, there was also no effect of the presence of a partner or the operationality of the food delivery mechanism on the number of button presses, indicating that subjects were not pressing the button to provision the partner. Moreover, the experience of the helpful or unhelpful act did not influence subjects' salivary oxytocin concentration. Variation in findings of reciprocity across studies appears to correspond with differing training protocols. Subjects' understanding of the task in the current study may have been constrained by the limited training received. Additional tests to verify subjects' understanding of such tasks are warranted in future studies.

Indexed as

cooperationdogfamiliaritymechanismoxytocinreciprocity

Identifiers

PMID39100737
PMCPMC7616333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.