Dogs avoid people who behave negatively to their owner: third-party affective evaluation

Chijiiwa, Hitomi; Kuroshima, Hika; Hori, Yusuke; Anderson, James R.; Fujita, Kazuo

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.05.018

Cited by 51 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Domestic dogs were tested in food sharing situations to find out whether they show different behavior toward two human partners based on their behavior toward a third-party (Marshall-Pescini et al, 2011; Nitzschner et al, 2014; see below in detail). There was only one study in which dogs were tested in a helping situation (Chijiiwa et al, 2015; see below in detail).…”

Section: Comparative Approach To Social Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chijiiwa et al (2015) implemented a helping scenario similar to the one used by Anderson et al (2013a; see the next section). Dogs observed that their owner tried to open a container, but failed and requested help from one of the two human partners who (depending on the experimental group) either helped (prosocial) or refused to help by turning her head away (antisocial).…”

Section: Comparative Approach To Social Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, several aspects of the procedure could have influenced the results of Chijiiwa et al (2015). In case of Anderson et al (2013a; see details later) the neutral partner was the recipient, thus subjects could see the action of the neutral partner as well, while in Chijiiwa et al (2015) the neutral partner did not show any behavior during the observation phase (no interaction with the recipient).…”

Section: Comparative Approach To Social Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In case of Anderson et al (2013a; see details later) the neutral partner was the recipient, thus subjects could see the action of the neutral partner as well, while in Chijiiwa et al (2015) the neutral partner did not show any behavior during the observation phase (no interaction with the recipient). Thus the only available information about this partner was that she offered food during the test trials (prosocial act in direct interaction with the subject).…”

Section: Comparative Approach To Social Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1Although the results of the first test trial (in which dogs only had indirect information about the partners) was not reported in the original study, by using the data reported in the Appendix of Chijiiwa et al (2015) ( Table 1 ) we found that there was no significant difference in any of the conditions (Binomial GLMM; condition × trial: p = 0.870; trial 1 in case of Helper condition vs. Non-helper condition: p = 0.5; Helper condition vs. Control condition: p = 0.5; Non-helper condition vs. Control condition: p = 1.0).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Origin of Social Evaluation, Social Eavesdropping, Reputation Formation, Image Scoring or What You Will

Abdai

Miklósi

2016

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social evaluation is a mental process that leverages the preference toward prosocial partners (positivity bias) against the avoidance of antisocial individuals (negativity bias) in a cooperative context. The phenomenon is well-known in humans, and recently comparative investigations looked at the possible evolutionary origins. So far social evaluation has been investigated mainly in non-human and human primates and dogs, however, there are few data on the presence of negativity/positivity bias in client-cleaner reef fish interactions as well. Unfortunately, the comparative approach to social evaluation is hindered by conceptual and procedural differences in experimental studies. By reviewing current knowledge on social evaluation in different species, we aim to point out that the capacity for social evaluation is not restricted to humans alone; however, its building blocks (negativity and positivity bias) may be more widespread separately. Due to its importance in survival, negativity bias likely to be widespread among animals; however, there has been less intensive selective pressure for the identification of prosocial companions, thus the latter ability may have emerged only in certain social species. We present a general framework and argue that negativity and positivity bias evolve independently and can be considered as social evaluation only if a unified behavior and cognitive system deals with both biases in concert.

show abstract

Section: Comparative Approach To Social Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparative Approach To Social Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%