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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Three owners did not complete this section of the questionnaire and so for these analyses n = 34 (one non-completer brought two subject dogs).
Bekoff, M. (2002). Virtuous nature. New Scientist, 175, 34.
Bekoff, M. (2004). Wild justice and fair play: Cooperation, forgiveness, and morality in animals. Biology and Philosophy, 19, 489–520.
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.
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.
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.
Bräuer, J., & Hanus, D. (2012). Social Justice Research, 25(3) (forthcoming).
Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19, 153–185.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.
Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). Cebus apella tolerate intermittent unreliability in human experimenters. International Journal of Primatology, 30, 663–674.
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.
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.
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.
Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T., McElreath, R., & Smirnov, O. (2007). Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature, 446, 794–796.
de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in human and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.
Gácsi, M., McGreevy, P., Kara, E., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs. Behavioural and Brain Functions, 5, 31.
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.
Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 1634–1636.
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.
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.
Horowitz, A. (2009). Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition, 12, 107–118.
Horowitz, A. C., & Bekoff, M. (2007). Naturalizing anthropomorphism: Behavioral prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoös, 20, 23–35.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lorenz, K. (1954). Man meets dog. London: Methuen.
Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Ferrario, A., Valsecchi, P., & Prato-Previde, E. (2011). Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Animal Behaviour, 81, 1177–1183.
Miklósi, Á., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (1998). Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Animal Cognition, 1, 113–121.
Morell, V. (2009). Going to the dogs. Science, 325, 1062–1065.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Russell, Y. I., Call, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Image scoring in great apes. Behavioural Processes, 78, 108–111.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1989). Envy and jealousy in close relationships. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 221–246.
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.
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.
Soproni, K., Miklósi, Á., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2002). Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 27–34.
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.
Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (1997). Dog-human relationship affects problem solving behaviour in the dog. Anthrozoös, 10, 214–224.
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.
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.
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301–1303.
West, R. E., & Young, R. J. (2002). Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Animal Cognition, 5, 183–186.
Wynne, C. D. L. (2004). Fair refusal by capuchin monkeys. Nature, 428, 140.
Yamamoto, S., & Takimoto, A. (2012). Social Justice Research, 25(3) (forthcoming).
This study was approved by Columbia University’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (protocol AC-AAAC2044). Thanks are due to those who were integral to the running of the trials: Julie Hecht, Emily Cherenack, Adam Chapman, Orellana del Fierro, Rebekka Dohme, Rebecca Johnson, Meredith Leeman, Jennifer Oh, Shoshana Schoenfeld, Hannah Solomon, and Ilana Yablonovich. Drs. Heather Barry Kappes and Tom Tyler, previously at New York University, initiated this research and provided the conceptual foundation; Heather additionally provided great statistical support. Many thanks to Animal Haven, a non-profit shelter in New York City that generously donated use of their facility for running trials. The reviewers of this manuscript improved it, for which I give my thanks.
About this article
Cite this article
Horowitz, A. Fair is Fine, but More is Better: Limits to Inequity Aversion in the Domestic Dog. Soc Just Res 25, 195–212 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0158-7
- Domestic dog
- Inequity aversion
- Experimental design