宠物狗从熟悉和不熟悉的同类那里接受食物时是否会有回报?

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Jim McGetrick, Leona Fux, Johannes Schullern-Schrattenhofen, Jean-Loup Rault, Friederike Range
{"title":"宠物狗从熟悉和不熟悉的同类那里接受食物时是否会有回报?","authors":"Jim McGetrick,&nbsp;Leona Fux,&nbsp;Johannes Schullern-Schrattenhofen,&nbsp;Jean-Loup Rault,&nbsp;Friederike Range","doi":"10.1111/eth.13430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Reciprocity is one of the most prominent explanations for the evolution of stable cooperation. Although reciprocity has been studied for decades in numerous animal species and behavioural contexts, its underlying proximate mechanisms remain unclear. Domestic dogs provide a useful model species for the study of proximate mechanisms, though there are currently inconsistent findings regarding dogs' propensity to reciprocate. Here, we investigated whether, after minimal training, pet dogs would press a button, which remotely controlled a food dispenser, to deliver food to an enclosure occupied by a helpful conspecific that had provided them with food or an unhelpful conspecific that had not provided them with food. We included an asocial control condition in which the enclosure was unoccupied and a social facilitation control in which the food delivery mechanism was non-functional. Whether subjects were familiar with the helpful and unhelpful conspecifics was also varied. In addition, to investigate potential mechanisms underlying reciprocity, we measured subjects salivary oxytocin concentration before and after they experienced the helpful and unhelpful acts. There was no effect of the previous helpfulness or the familiarity of the partner on the number of times subjects pressed the button. However, there was also no effect of the presence of a partner or the operationality of the food delivery mechanism on the number of button presses, indicating that subjects were not pressing the button to provision the partner. Moreover, the experience of the helpful or unhelpful act did not influence subjects' salivary oxytocin concentration. Variation in findings of reciprocity across studies appears to correspond with differing training protocols. Subjects' understanding of the task in the current study may have been constrained by the limited training received. Additional tests to verify subjects' understanding of such tasks are warranted in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eth.13430","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?\",\"authors\":\"Jim McGetrick,&nbsp;Leona Fux,&nbsp;Johannes Schullern-Schrattenhofen,&nbsp;Jean-Loup Rault,&nbsp;Friederike Range\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/eth.13430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Reciprocity is one of the most prominent explanations for the evolution of stable cooperation. Although reciprocity has been studied for decades in numerous animal species and behavioural contexts, its underlying proximate mechanisms remain unclear. Domestic dogs provide a useful model species for the study of proximate mechanisms, though there are currently inconsistent findings regarding dogs' propensity to reciprocate. Here, we investigated whether, after minimal training, pet dogs would press a button, which remotely controlled a food dispenser, to deliver food to an enclosure occupied by a helpful conspecific that had provided them with food or an unhelpful conspecific that had not provided them with food. We included an asocial control condition in which the enclosure was unoccupied and a social facilitation control in which the food delivery mechanism was non-functional. Whether subjects were familiar with the helpful and unhelpful conspecifics was also varied. In addition, to investigate potential mechanisms underlying reciprocity, we measured subjects salivary oxytocin concentration before and after they experienced the helpful and unhelpful acts. There was no effect of the previous helpfulness or the familiarity of the partner on the number of times subjects pressed the button. However, there was also no effect of the presence of a partner or the operationality of the food delivery mechanism on the number of button presses, indicating that subjects were not pressing the button to provision the partner. Moreover, the experience of the helpful or unhelpful act did not influence subjects' salivary oxytocin concentration. Variation in findings of reciprocity across studies appears to correspond with differing training protocols. Subjects' understanding of the task in the current study may have been constrained by the limited training received. Additional tests to verify subjects' understanding of such tasks are warranted in future studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eth.13430\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.13430\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.13430","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

互惠是稳定合作进化的最重要解释之一。尽管数十年来人们已经在许多动物物种和行为环境中对互惠性进行了研究,但其潜在的近似机制仍不清楚。家犬为近似机制的研究提供了一个有用的模式物种,尽管目前关于家犬互惠倾向的研究结果并不一致。在这里,我们研究了宠物狗在经过最低限度的训练后,是否会按下一个遥控食物分配器的按钮,将食物送到为其提供食物的同类或未为其提供食物的同类所占据的围栏中。我们还加入了一种非社会控制条件,即围栏无人居住;以及一种社会促进控制条件,即食物分配机制不起作用。被试是否熟悉提供帮助和不提供帮助的同种动物也有不同。此外,为了研究互惠的潜在机制,我们测量了受试者在经历帮助和不帮助行为前后唾液催产素的浓度。之前的帮助行为或伴侣的熟悉程度对受试者按下按钮的次数没有影响。然而,同伴的存在或食物传送装置的操作性对按下按钮的次数也没有影响,这表明受试者按下按钮并不是为了给同伴提供食物。此外,帮助或不帮助行为的经历也不会影响受试者唾液催产素的浓度。不同研究中互惠结果的差异似乎与不同的训练方案有关。在目前的研究中,受试者对任务的理解可能受到了有限培训的限制。在今后的研究中,有必要进行更多的测试来验证受试者对此类任务的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?

Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?

Do pet dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics?

Reciprocity is one of the most prominent explanations for the evolution of stable cooperation. Although reciprocity has been studied for decades in numerous animal species and behavioural contexts, its underlying proximate mechanisms remain unclear. Domestic dogs provide a useful model species for the study of proximate mechanisms, though there are currently inconsistent findings regarding dogs' propensity to reciprocate. Here, we investigated whether, after minimal training, pet dogs would press a button, which remotely controlled a food dispenser, to deliver food to an enclosure occupied by a helpful conspecific that had provided them with food or an unhelpful conspecific that had not provided them with food. We included an asocial control condition in which the enclosure was unoccupied and a social facilitation control in which the food delivery mechanism was non-functional. Whether subjects were familiar with the helpful and unhelpful conspecifics was also varied. In addition, to investigate potential mechanisms underlying reciprocity, we measured subjects salivary oxytocin concentration before and after they experienced the helpful and unhelpful acts. There was no effect of the previous helpfulness or the familiarity of the partner on the number of times subjects pressed the button. However, there was also no effect of the presence of a partner or the operationality of the food delivery mechanism on the number of button presses, indicating that subjects were not pressing the button to provision the partner. Moreover, the experience of the helpful or unhelpful act did not influence subjects' salivary oxytocin concentration. Variation in findings of reciprocity across studies appears to correspond with differing training protocols. Subjects' understanding of the task in the current study may have been constrained by the limited training received. Additional tests to verify subjects' understanding of such tasks are warranted in future studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信