Fair is Fine, but More is Better: Limits to Inequity Aversion in the Domestic Dog
- 760 Downloads
Research with domestic dogs provides a unique approach for exploring the evolution of fairness and justice. Not only are dogs descended from highly social canids; they have also been bred for cooperative tasks with humans. Dogs act cooperatively in social play and are skilled on other social cognitive tasks. It is reasonable to ask whether dogs behave in ways similar to primates in other social contexts. In particular, do dogs perceive and respond to unfairness or injustice, a skill potentially borne of long-term affiliation with and selection by humans? Using a revised test of inequity aversion which looks at advantageous and disadvantageous inequity, the current research investigated the behavior of 38 domestic dogs. Subject dogs and a control dog approached two trainers in turn: one who rewarded them equally for sitting on command and one who rewarded them unequally—either over-rewarding or under-rewarding the control dog. After familiarization with the trainers, subjects chose which trainer to approach by themselves. Subjects preferred the over-rewarding trainer over the fair trainer; they had no preference between the under-rewarding and the fair trainer. Further analyses found that length of ownership, subjects’ age, and cooperative work experience reversed the approach preference, predicting preference for the fair trainer—though breed did not. These results suggest that the precursory sensitivity, which dogs showed to iniquitous outcomes in prior research, does not extend to both advantageous and disadvantageous inequity and does not hold when the subject is continually rewarded. Dogs selected a trainer who had treated them “unfairly,” yet who presented a potentially greater opportunity for future rewards. When the stakes were high, dogs showed a greater sensitivity to the quantity of a reward than to the fairness of a reward.
KeywordsFairness Domestic dog Inequity aversion Experimental design
- Bekoff, M. (2002). Virtuous nature. New Scientist, 175, 34.Google Scholar
- Bekoff, M., & Allen, C. (1998). Intentional communication and social play: How and why animals negotiate and agree to play. In M. Bekoff & J. A. Byers (Eds.), Animal play: Evolutionary, comparative, and ecological perspectives (pp. 97–114). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bräuer, J., & Hanus, D. (2012). Social Justice Research, 25(3) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in human and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Lorenz, K. (1954). Man meets dog. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
- Price, S. A., & Brosnan, S. F. (2012). To each according to his need? Variability in the responses to inequity in non-human primates. Social Justice Research, 25(2). doi:10.1007/s11211-012-0153-z.
- Range, F., Leitner, K., & Virányi, Z. (2012). The influence of the relationship and motivation on inequity aversion in dogs. Social Justice Research, 25(2). doi:10.1007/s11211-012-0155-x.
- Reddy, V. (2010). Green eyes in bio-cultural frames. In S. Hart & M. Legerstee (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research and multidisciplinary approaches. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1989). Envy and jealousy in close relationships. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 221–246.Google Scholar
- Tyler, T. R. (2001). Procedural strategies for gaining deference: Increasing social harmony or creating false consciousness? In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 69–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Yamamoto, S., & Takimoto, A. (2012). Social Justice Research, 25(3) (forthcoming).Google Scholar