Do Dogs Prefer Helpers in an Infant-Based Social Evaluation Task?

cooperation domestic dogs helper hinderer infancy social evaluation

Journal

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 05 06 2018
accepted: 04 03 2019
entrez: 16 4 2019
pubmed: 16 4 2019
medline: 16 4 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Social evaluative abilities emerge in human infancy, highlighting their importance in shaping our species' early understanding of the social world. Remarkably, infants show social evaluation in relatively abstract contexts: for instance, preferring a wooden shape that helps another shape in a puppet show over a shape that hinders another character (Hamlin et al., 2007). Here we ask whether these abstract social evaluative abilities are shared with other species. Domestic dogs provide an ideal animal species in which to address this question because this species cooperates extensively with conspecifics and humans and may thus benefit from a more general ability to socially evaluate prospective partners. We tested dogs on a social evaluation puppet show task originally used with human infants. Subjects watched a helpful shape aid an agent in achieving its goal and a hinderer shape prevent an agent from achieving its goal. We examined (1) whether dogs showed a preference for the helpful or hinderer shape, (2) whether dogs exhibited longer exploration of the helpful or hinderer shape, and (3) whether dogs were more likely to engage with their handlers during the helper or hinderer events. In contrast to human infants, dogs showed no preference for either the helper or the hinderer, nor were they more likely to engage with their handlers during helper or hinderer events. Dogs did spend more time exploring the hindering shape, perhaps indicating that they were puzzled by the agent's unhelpful behavior. However, this preference was moderated by a preference for one of the two shapes, regardless of role. These findings suggest that, relative to infants, dogs show weak or absent social evaluative abilities when presented with abstract events and point to constraints on dogs' abilities to evaluate others' behavior.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30984062
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00591
pmc: PMC6449837
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

591

Références

Am Psychol. 2000 Nov;55(11):1233-43
pubmed: 11280937
Anim Cogn. 2002 Sep;5(3):183-6
pubmed: 12357291
Curr Biol. 2003 Apr 29;13(9):763-6
pubmed: 12725735
Psychol Sci. 2003 Sep;14(5):402-8
pubmed: 12930468
Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Sep;9(9):439-44
pubmed: 16061417
Science. 2006 Mar 3;311(5765):1297-300
pubmed: 16513985
Nature. 2006 Jun 22;441(7096):975-8
pubmed: 16791194
J Evol Biol. 2007 Mar;20(2):415-32
pubmed: 17305808
Nature. 2007 Nov 22;450(7169):557-9
pubmed: 18033298
Behav Processes. 2008 May;78(1):108-11
pubmed: 18068313
Anim Cogn. 2008 Oct;11(4):611-23
pubmed: 18357476
Behav Processes. 2009 Oct;82(2):109-18
pubmed: 19686949
Anim Cogn. 2010 May;13(3):525-33
pubmed: 20020168
Behav Processes. 2010 Oct;85(3):293-8
pubmed: 20708659
Dev Sci. 2010 Nov;13(6):923-9
pubmed: 20977563
Anim Cogn. 2011 Mar;14(2):291-302
pubmed: 21140184
Anim Cogn. 2012 Mar;15(2):175-85
pubmed: 21874515
J Comp Psychol. 2013 Feb;127(1):63-75
pubmed: 22746158
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42698
pubmed: 22905161
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46880
pubmed: 23056507
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47653
pubmed: 23071828
Anim Cogn. 2013 Mar;16(2):273-85
pubmed: 23090682
Cognition. 2013 Apr;127(1):140-6
pubmed: 23376298
Nat Commun. 2013;4:1561
pubmed: 23463004
Anim Cogn. 2014 Mar;17(2):445-59
pubmed: 23995845
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 28;8(8):e72727
pubmed: 24015272
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 13;8(11):e79198
pubmed: 24236108
Biol Lett. 2014 May;10(5):20140058
pubmed: 24850892
Vis Neurosci. 1989 Aug;3(2):119-25
pubmed: 2487095
Curr Biol. 2014 Sep 8;24(17):R791-3
pubmed: 25202866
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 17;9(9):e106530
pubmed: 25229452
Anim Cogn. 2015 Mar;18(2):475-83
pubmed: 25348065
Front Psychol. 2015 Jan 29;5:1563
pubmed: 25688216
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 25;10(2):e0116314
pubmed: 25714915
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 13;10(11):e0140570
pubmed: 26565412
Behav Brain Sci. 2015;38:e44
pubmed: 26786770
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 13;11(4):e0151600
pubmed: 27073867
Infant Behav Dev. 2016 Nov;45(Pt B):125-139
pubmed: 27852441
Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 14;7:1772
pubmed: 27895610
Behav Processes. 2017 Jul;140:53-60
pubmed: 28396145
PLoS One. 2017 Oct 18;12(10):e0185696
pubmed: 29045426
Curr Biol. 2018 Jan 22;28(2):280-286.e5
pubmed: 29307556
Psychol Sci. 2018 Sep;29(9):1405-1413
pubmed: 29889620
Dev Psychol. 2018 Aug;54(8):1445-1455
pubmed: 30010354
Vis Neurosci. 1993 Jan-Feb;10(1):173-80
pubmed: 8424924

Auteurs

Katherine McAuliffe (K)

Department of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, United States.
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

Michael Bogese (M)

Department of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, United States.
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

Linda W Chang (LW)

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Caitlin E Andrews (CE)

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States.

Tanya Mayer (T)

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

Aja Faranda (A)

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

J Kiley Hamlin (JK)

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Laurie R Santos (LR)

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.

Classifications MeSH