Social Justice Research

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 195–212 | Cite as

Fair is Fine, but More is Better: Limits to Inequity Aversion in the Domestic Dog

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Fairness Domestic dog Inequity aversion Experimental design 

References

  1. Bekoff, M. (2002). Virtuous nature. New Scientist, 175, 34.Google Scholar
  2. Bekoff, M. (2004). Wild justice and fair play: Cooperation, forgiveness, and morality in animals. Biology and Philosophy, 19, 489–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Blake, P. R., & McAuliffe, K. (2011). “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity. Cognition, 120, 215–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bräuer, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Are apes inequity averse? New data on the token-exchange paradigm. American Journal of Primatology, 71, 175–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bräuer, J., & Hanus, D. (2012). Social Justice Research, 25(3) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  7. Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19, 153–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). Cebus apella tolerate intermittent unreliability in human experimenters. International Journal of Primatology, 30, 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brosnan, S. F., Schiff, H. C., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Tolerance for inequity may increase with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brosnan, S. F., Talbot, C., Ahlgren, M., Lambeth, S. P., & Schapiro, S. J. (2010). Mechanisms underlying responses to inequitable outcomes in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Animal Behaviour, 79, 1229–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Call, J., Bräuer, J., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 257–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T., McElreath, R., & Smirnov, O. (2007). Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature, 446, 794–796.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. de Waal, F. B. M., Leimgruber, K., & Greenberg, A. R. (2008). Giving is self-rewarding for monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 13685–13689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gácsi, M., McGreevy, P., Kara, E., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs. Behavioural and Brain Functions, 5, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gácsi, M., Miklósi, A., Varga, O., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2004). Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Animal Cognition, 7, 144–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 1634–1636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hauser, M. D., Cominsa, J. A., Pytkaa, L. M., Cahilla, D. P., & Velez-Calderona, S. (2011). What experimental experience affects dogs’ comprehension of human communicative actions? Behavioural Processes, 86, 7–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horner, V., Carter, J. D., Suchak, M., & de Waal, F. (2011). Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 13847–13851.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horowitz, A. (2009). Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition, 12, 107–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horowitz, A. C., & Bekoff, M. (2007). Naturalizing anthropomorphism: Behavioral prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoös, 20, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen, K., Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). What’s in it for me? Self-regard precludes altruism and spite in chimpanzees. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 273, 1013–1021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kundey, S. M. A., De Los Reyes, A., Royer, E., Molina, S., Monnier, B., German, R., et al. (2010). Reputation-like inference in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 14, 291–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonardi, R. J., Vick, S.-J., & Dufour, V. (2012). Waiting for more: The performance of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) on exchange tasks. Animal Cognition, 15, 107–120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lorenz, K. (1954). Man meets dog. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  29. Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Ferrario, A., Valsecchi, P., & Prato-Previde, E. (2011). Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour, 81, 1177–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miklósi, Á., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (1998). Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Animal Cognition, 1, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morell, V. (2009). Going to the dogs. Science, 325, 1062–1065.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morris, P. H., Doe, C., & Godsell, E. (2008). Secondary emotions in non-primate species? Behavioural reports and subjective claims by animal owners. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.
  34. Pritchard, D., Dunnette, M. D., & Jorgenson, D. O. (1972). Effects of perceptions of equity and inequity on worker performance and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Range, F., Horn, L., Viranyi, Z., & Huber, L. (2008). The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 340–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. Russell, Y. I., Call, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Image scoring in great apes. Behavioural Processes, 78, 108–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1989). Envy and jealousy in close relationships. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 221–246.Google Scholar
  40. Schwab, C., & Huber, L. (2006). Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 169–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Silk, J., Brosnan, S. F., Vonk, J., Henrich, J., Povinelli, D. J., Shapiro, S., Richardson, A., Lambeth, S. P., & Mascaro, J. (2005). Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature, 437, 1357–1359.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soproni, K., Miklósi, Á., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2002). Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 27–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Subiaul, F., Vonk, J., Okamoto-Barth, S., & Barth, J. (2008). Do chimpanzees learn reputation by observation? Evidence from direct and indirect experience with giving and withholding strangers. Animal Cognition, 11, 611–623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (1997). Dog-human relationship affects problem solving behaviour in the dog. Anthrozoös, 10, 214–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Udell, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010). Ontogeny and phylogeny: Both are essential to human-sensitive behavior in the genus Canis. Animal Behaviour, 79, e9–e14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301–1303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. West, R. E., & Young, R. J. (2002). Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Animal Cognition, 5, 183–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wynne, C. D. L. (2004). Fair refusal by capuchin monkeys. Nature, 428, 140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yamamoto, S., & Takimoto, A. (2012). Social Justice Research, 25(3) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBarnard CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations