Abstract

Inequity aversion, the resistance to inequitable outcomes, has been demonstrated in a wide variety of animal species. Inequity aversion was hypothesised to have co-evolved with cooperation but only limited evidence supports this. Dogs provide a suitable model species to test this hypothesis as dogs were previously shown to be inequity averse and dog breeds vary in the extent to which they were selected for cooperativeness. Here, we compared the response of 12 individuals of “cooperative worker” breeds with that of 12 individuals of “independent worker” breeds in the “paw task” previously used to demonstrate inequity aversion in dogs. We also compared the two breed groups’ subsequent social behaviours in a food tolerance test and free interaction session. Although subjects in both breed groups were inequity averse, we found no considerable difference between the groups in the extent of the negative response to inequity or in the impact of the inequity on subsequent social behaviours. However, we found differences between the breed groups in the response to reward omission with cooperative breeds tending to work for longer than independent breeds. Additionally, in the free interaction session, individuals of cooperative breeds spent more time in proximity to their partner in the baseline condition than individuals of independent breeds. Overall, our results do not provide support for the hypothesis that inequity aversion and cooperation co-evolved. However, they illuminate potential differences in selection pressures experienced by cooperative worker and independent worker dog breeds throughout their evolutionary history.

Highlights

  • Many non-human animal species compare payoffs with social partners and display negative responses to inequity

  • We subsequently removed all interactions from the full model to investigate whether condition had a significant effect; the number of times the subjects gave the paw in the Reward Inequity (RI) condition was significantly lower than that in the ET and NR conditions, as per previous paw task studies [65,66,68] (GLMM: RI vs ET: β = 5.55, S.E. = 0.96, p < 0.001; RI vs NR: β = 2.80, S.E. = 0.93, p = 0.003)

  • Subjects in the current study were inequity averse, as per previous paw task studies [65,66,68]; we obtained no convincing evidence for breed differences in the extent of the negative response to inequity, or in the effect of inequity on subsequent social behaviours

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many non-human animal species compare payoffs with social partners and display negative responses to inequity (see Brosnan [1], Brosnan and de Waal [2], McGetrick and Range [3], and Oberliessen and Kalenscher [4] for review).

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.