investigating prosocial tendencies in pet dogs

Abstracts / Journal of Veterinary Behavior 9 (2014) e1ee19e6

16

Pro-social behavior in pet dogsMYLÈNE CHAUMETTE 1,*, RACHEL DALE 1,2, RANDI DANIA 1,SARAH MARSHALL-PESCINI 1,2, FRIEDERIKE RANGE 1,2

1Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine,Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna,Austria2Wolf Science Center, Ernstbrunn, Austria*Corresponding author: mylene.chaumette@vetmeduni.ac.at

Prosocial behaviors are defined as any behaviors performed by oneindividual to alleviate another’s need or improve their welfare. For along time considered to be a hallmark of humanity, the evolu-tionary origin of such behaviors has recently received considerableattention. To investigate such behavior, scientists have oftenresorted to the so-called “Prosocial-choice test (PCT)” paradigm,where subjects are given a choice between two reward combina-tions: either both subject and partner receive a reward (prosocialchoice) or only the subject gets it (selfish choice). With non-humanprimates this PCT paradigm yielded controversial results. Indeed,one difficulty is to find a good balance between allowing animalsenough experience to understand the mechanics of the task, yet avoidover-training that could bias the results during the test. To under-stand the underlying mechanisms involved in the expression ofprosociality and assess the effect of prior training on dogs’ pro-social choices, we tested individuals after either a ‘minimal’ or an‘extensive’ training regime on a bar-pulling paradigm. The taskconsisted of two movable baited shelves, one on top of the other,placed in front of 2 separate enclosures. The actor could either pull aprosocial shelf (delivering food to both animals) or a selfish one(providing food to the actor only). The ‘minimal’ training requireddogs to learn the mechanics of the task, but never experiencing thecombination of selfish vs. prosocial together. The ‘extensive’training also involved gaining experience of the prosocial optionwithout the partner present. The response of both training groupsduring the test was compared. Our results showed that when pro-social and selfish options were presented simultaneously, subjectsdeveloped a preference to pull one of the two shelves regardless ofits delivery to the partner. Because of this effect, we re-designed ourstudy presenting dogs with an empty shelf and a shelf which onlydelivered food to the partner. Dogs were trained alone with accessto both enclosures, so they learnt to choose the baited shelf toobtain a reward in the partner enclosure (giving option). In the test,the previously learned behavior (giving) now rewarded a familiar ora stranger partner dog, with a focus on extinction of giving be-haviors according to the dog’s relationship.Key words: prosocial behavior; dogs; mechanisms; training;selfish; helping

17

Investigating prosocial tendencies in pet dogsRACHEL DALE 1,2, MYLÈNE CHAUMETTE 1,*, RANDI DANIA 1,SARAHMARSHALL-PESCINI 1,2, FRIEDERIKE RANGE 1,2

1Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine,Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna,Austria2Wolf Science Center, Ernstbrunn, Austria*Corresponding author: mylene.chaumette@vetmeduni.ac.at

Prosocial behavior is defined as voluntary actions that benefit others,a definition that highlights the consequences of the actor’s actionsrather than the motivational state behind the behavior. In humans,helping occurs in different contexts and is closely linked to emotions.In an attempt to understand the proximate causes of prosociality,studies have tended to focus on different primate species. A principalparadigm used in these studies is the “prosocial choice test” (PCT)

where actors have to choose between two options: obtain a foodreward for themselves and, simultaneously provide one to aconspecific (prosocial) or obtain a food reward only for themselves(selfish). However, results are often inconsistent across tasks, evenwhen testing the same species, rendering conclusions about theproximate mechanisms of prosociality difficult. To further elucidateultimate and proximate mechanisms involved in the expression ofprosocial behavior, it is crucial to test a wider range of species. Herewe tested the aforementioned approach with pet dogs using amodified token choice paradigm. The test presented the actor withtwo non-food tokens; one item led to a prosocial outcome and theother to a selfish one. The actor was able to select one by touching itwith their nose.We tested two groups of dogs each receiving differenttraining: the first group had to remember the meaning of 2 tokenscorresponding to 2 options (selfish/prosocial), while the second hadto additionally learn to avoid a control token (no reward). Results fromthe training indicated that dogs did not differentiate between one(selfish) and two (prosocial) food rewards. Therefore the paradigmwas adapted to create an altruistic set-up. Here the subjects weretested with a giving token (which rewarded only the partner) or acontrol token. During training subjects had access to both subject andpartner enclosures and so could gain the ‘giving’ reward. In the testeither a stranger or a familiar conspecific was present in the adjacentenclosure and received the reward. We observed the extinction ratesof a previously rewarded response according to the relationship withthe partner who received the reward.Key words: help; cooperative; prosocial behavior; proximatemechanisms; emotional response; dogs

18

How can we motivate owners to walk their dogs more?CARRI WESTGARTH 1,*, ROBERT M. CHRISTLEY 1,HAYLEY E. CHRISTIAN 2

1Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute ofInfection and Global Health, and School of Veterinary Science, Facultyof Health and Life Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus,Chester High Road, Neston, Cheshire, CH64 7TE, UK2Centre for the Built Environment and Health, School of PopulationHealth, and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research The Universityof Western Australia (M707), 35 Stirling Highway, CRAWLEY WA6009, Australia*Corresponding author: carri.westgarth@liverpool.ac.uk

Physical inactivity affects both human and canine physical andmental health. Both are suffering from rising levels of obesity andassociated physical disease. There is good evidence that dogownership is associated with higher levels of physical activity, butnot all owners walk their dogs regularly. Dog walking is a specificphysical activity behavior which is dependent on a human-caninerelationship, so it requires a context-specific approach to examinecorrelates of favorable behaviors. We used a social-ecologicalapproach to review existing data, and developed a model ofthe physical-environment, social-environment, personal and dog--related factors associated with dog walking. We reviewed publishedfindings from 1990-2012 in the human and veterinary literature forevidence of objective and self-reported measures of dog walkingbehavior, or reported perceptions about dog walking. With oneexception, study designs were cross-sectional observational ques-tionnaire surveys (often involving convenience-based sampling),case studies and qualitative interviews. These are all considered lowon the hierarchy of evidence. There was strong evidence that thestrength of the dog-owner relationship, through a sense of obligationto walk the dog, and the perceived support and motivation a dogprovides for walking, is associated with dog walking. The perceivedexercise requirements of the dog may also be a modifiable point forintervention. Access to suitable walking areas with dog supportive