Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42149257›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2026

Reward expectation drives dogs' choices in a prosocial test.

Patrizia Piotti, R M Spooner, K Peirce, I Shelley, Georgia Tuohy, Jérôme Micheletta, Juliane Kaminski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Patrizia PiottiCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, School of Psychology, Sports and Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7761-8712
R M SpoonerCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, School of Psychology, Sports and Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
K PeirceCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, School of Psychology, Sports and Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
I ShelleyCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, School of Psychology, Sports and Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Georgia TuohyCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, School of Psychology, Sports and Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-6245-992X
Jérôme MichelettaCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, School of Psychology, Sports and Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-6781
Juliane KaminskiCentre for Comparative and Evolutionary Psychology, School of Psychology, Sports and Health Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. juliane.kaminski@port.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3437-3484

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research has tried to determine whether and under which conditions domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) engage in prosocial and potentially altruistic behaviour. A common paradigm used to test this is the so-called prosocial choice test. This is a task in which the animal can choose to operate an apparatus based on the outcome. For example, this could involve delivering food to themselves, to another individual, to both, or to neither. The aim of the current study was to investigate dogs' collaborative tendencies with humans, with the use of a novel prosocial choice test paradigm. This paradigm was designed to take into account the fact that predators may have a more natural tendency to pull vertically rather than horizontally. Our paradigm is based on pulleys that are operated by the dogs, an action which dogs mastered without extensive training. All dogs (N = 16) participated in three experimental conditions (selfish-, prosocial- and altruistic condition) and two control conditions (no-reward- and partner-absent control). We further tested to what extent the between subjects' familiarity with the human partner (owner vs. stranger) mattered to the dogs. The dogs were more likely to operate the apparatus when they received a reward (selfish- and prosocial condition) than when they did not (altruistic- and no-reward condition). In addition, the absence of a partner, owner or stranger only marginally affected the dogs' tendency to pull. Based on our findings, we cannot conclude that dogs make altruistic or prosocial choices; rather, they appear motivated by selfish interests. We discuss the possibility that even small procedural changes can have large implications on the behaviour of the dogs during the tests.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorRewardSocial BehaviorAltruismAnimalsCooperative BehaviorDogsFemaleHumansMaleCooperationDomestic dogsProsocial behaviourSelfish choices

Identifiers

PMID42149257
PMCPMC13364881

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.