Cooperation and competition during dyadic play in domestic dogs, Canis familiaris

Bauer, Erika; Smuts, Barbara

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.09.006

Cited by 148 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cats are generally asocial animals, and play does not appear to feature in courtship behaviour (Liberg et al, 2000). Dogs, by contrast, are highly social, and it has been suggested that social play may have a role in influencing the outcome of more competitive relationships (Bauer and Smuts, 2007;Trisko, 2011). The costs associated with playing in wild animals (energy consumption, exposure to predators, risk of injury) are considerably less in companion animals than in wild animals, lifting the evolutionary pressures that would otherwise lead to a reduction in motivation to play in lifestages where it has little benefit.…”

Section: Play In Domestic Carnivoramentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individual bouts of social play are often prolonged by role-reversal, in which larger, stronger or generally more aggressive individuals momentarily perform behaviour more typical of smaller, weaker or more timid animals, in order to invite the resumption of a bout of play (Bekoff, 2014). Another suggested mechanism whereby this is achieved is selfhandicapping, in which both participants make themselves vulnerable to (playful) attack (Spinka et al, 2001) although this is not ubiquitous, at least in domestic dogs (Bauer and Smuts, 2007). Such behaviour is superficially non-adaptive, since it involves an animal altering its trajectory away from the achievement of an immediate gain (winning) for the apparently more nebulous benefits of enhancing the probability that its partner will continue to play.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why do adult dogs ‘play’?

Bradshaw

Pullen

Rooney

2015

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the Carnivora, play behaviour is usually made up of motor patterns characteristic of predatory, agonistic and courtship behaviour. Domestic dogs are unusual in that play is routinely performed by adults, both socially, with conspecifics and with humans, and also asocially, with objects. This enhanced playfulness is commonly thought to be a side effect of paedomorphosis, the perpetuation of juvenile traits into adulthood, but here we suggest that the functions of the different types of play are sufficiently distinct that they are unlikely to have arisen through a single evolutionary mechanism. Solitary play with objects appears to be derived from predatory behaviour: preferred toys are those that can be dismembered, and a complex habituation-like feedback system inhibits play with objects that are resistant to alteration. Intraspecific social play is structurally different from interspecific play and may therefore be motivationally distinct and serve different goals; for example, dogs often compete over objects when playing with other dogs, but are usually more cooperative when the play partner is human. The majority of dogs do not seem to regard competitive games played with a human partner as "dominance" contests: rather, winning possession of objects during games appears to be simply rewarding. Play may be an important factor in sociality, since dogs are capable of extracting social information not only from games in which they participate, but also from games that they observe between third parties. We suggest that the domestic dog's characteristic playfulness in social contexts is an adaptive trait, selected during domestication to facilitate both training for specific purposes, and the formation of emotionally-based bonds between dog and owner. Play frequency and form may therefore be an indicator of the quality of dog-owner relationships.

show abstract

Section: Play In Domestic Carnivoramentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do adult dogs ‘play’?

Bradshaw

Pullen

Rooney

2015

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The play actions are performed in role reversals in which the existing dominant-subordinate relationships are claimed not to play a major role, that is, in order to maintain play both partners should be willing to take any roles in play (Pellis and Pellis, 1998). Recent results, however, contradict the notion that more advantaged individuals consistently relinquish their advantage to facilitate play (Bauer and Smuts, 2007), and role reversals were only observed during some type of behaviours (e.g. chases and tackles).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, play signals help to ensure that any harmful action is not taken seriously both between conspecifics and in dog-human play (Fagen, 1981;Bekoff, 1998). Moreover, self-handicapping and play signalling work together to communicate playful intent and reinforce existing roles (Bauer and Smuts, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wolves do not join the dance: Sophisticated aggression control by adjusting to human social signals in dogs

Gácsi¹,

Vas²,

Topál³

et al. 2013

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn this study we aimed to investigate novel aspects of dogs' comprehension of human social behaviours by revealing potential differences in the responses of wolves and dogs when they interact with a human in socially ambiguous situations.In Experiment 1, pet dogs (N = 13) and hand-reared wolves (N = 13) encountered a stranger who approached them first in a friendly, then a threatening way, and finally switched back to friendliness again (Approaching stranger; AS) while the passive owner/caregiver was standing close to the subjects. In contrast to dogs, wolves avoided eye contact with both the caregiver and the stranger, however, only dogs showed aggressive displays towards the stranger.In Experiment 2, the same subjects were tested in an Object guarding (OG) situation. A familiar woman, communicating the playful nature of the encounter, pretended to aim at taking away her belt-bag from the subjects trying to make them respond with guarding behaviour. Finally, she tried to take away the object without using dominant/threatening behaviour. During the Game episode some dogs and wolves showed guarding displays, but only dogs switched their responses twice and finally allowed the human take hold of the object. All dogs but none of the wolves gazed at the owner/caregiver during the test.In Experiment 3, we tested trained Belgian shepherd dogs (N = 13) in AS, OG, and in a Food guarding (FG) situation. In FG a familiar woman challenged the subject to guard a bone by applying enticement but otherwise not communicating the playful/pretended nature of the encounter. Dogs displayed aggressive behaviours in all three situations as a response to the human's behaviour. In AS they adjusted their behaviour from passive/friendly to aggressive and then friendly again, according to the switch in the human partner's actions. In OG and FG situations, after showing aggressive guarding displays they allowed the human to take away the guarded object, both the bag and the food. A characteristic high-pitched vocalisation observed during both guarding situations, typically before the first aggressive display, could refer to the dogs' ambivalent emotions. This suggests that the human's challenging behaviour alone might be effective to evoke a simulated guarding behaviour. Our results support the view that dogs have advanced abilities and readiness to combine seemingly contradicting behaviour responses to respond to human behaviours or expectations, whilst even hand-reared and extensively socialised wolves tend to display less human centred behaviours and adjust their behaviours less to that of humans' in interspecific situations.

show abstract

“…Note that the null hypothesis of complete reciprocation states that probabilities of occurrence of behavior are the same for all individuals-for instance, an equal proportion of wins during play interactions (Bauer & Smuts, 2007). However, other null hypotheses can be tested, as has been mentioned.…”

Section: Simulation Studymentioning

confidence: 99%