# The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/340



> *The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs
> *
> 1. Friederike Rangea,b,1,
> 2. Lisa Horna,
> ...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

tooo........many.....big........words......need help....head hurting bad......so far all I'm getting is if my dog sits for an "atta boy" I better not let him find out his neighbor sits for a steak cuz if he finds out he's gonna develop a bit of a 'tude and basically tell me my cheap ass can get [email protected]@ked?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

No reason to ever stop rewards. In particular random reward. If the dog doesn't get rewarded for a particular behaviour it will try hard because it know that will come. Removing reward altogether will extinguish a behaviour. 
Pertaining to the article, one of my dogs always has to check out wht I'm giving the other dog when I work them together. He gets excited if he doesn't get something. I'm not sure about reactions based on rewards of different value.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Hey but I thought dogs got jealous....You mean they will "shake" even if the dog next to them is getting a bigger treat than they are....Holy crap!!! another breakthrough in dog training.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Didn't Butch post this a while back ??


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

I didn't even know people tried breaking stuff down this much till recently, lol


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Inequity aversion is thought to be the driving force behind unselfish motivated punishment

They couldn't have said this in human terms. Had to use outerspace speak. I wonder how many hours they spend with a thesaurus.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> No reason to ever stop rewards. In particular random reward. If the dog doesn't get rewarded for a particular behaviour it will try hard because it know that will come. Removing reward altogether will extinguish a behaviour.
> Pertaining to the article, one of my dogs always has to check out wht I'm giving the other dog when I work them together. He gets excited if he doesn't get something. I'm not sure about reactions based on rewards of different value.


Yep, that's the reason I work! No money, no dogs, no phun! :razz:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Pertaining to the article, one of my dogs always has to check out wht I'm giving the other dog when I work them together. He gets excited if he doesn't get something. I'm not sure about reactions based on rewards of different value.

I wonder what the baseline personalities of these dogs were as well. There is no accounting for that in this study. Also, do they say how long the dog was trained to do the shake before they started this study ???


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Pertaining to the article, one of my dogs always has to check out wht I'm giving the other dog when I work them together. He gets excited if he doesn't get something. I'm not sure about reactions based on rewards of different value.
> 
> I wonder what the baseline personalities of these dogs were as well. There is no accounting for that in this study. Also, do they say how long the dog was trained to do the shake before they started this study ???


 
Good point!
The different personalities could/would make a huge difference. 
My oldeer GSD is a thinker. The younger is Moe, Larry, Curly and Conan all rolled into one. Their responses to training and life in general are totally different.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

There was supplementary info on the study, about 30 dogs, none of which gsd's, each with typical family companion names, so not a very broad study on diverse temperaments.


----------



## Nancy Rhynard (Nov 24, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> There was supplementary info on the study, about 30 dogs, none of which gsd's, each with typical family companion names, so not a very broad study on diverse temperaments.


Unfortunately 30 subjects does not a research study make. While I am not willing to spend $10 to read this article in it's entirety, interesting as it may be with regard to primates, it appears to have too many holes to reach any conclusions. Hmm With 30 dogs here, I think when we are above freezing I will try this and gather my stats. Or perhaps I will get different results if below freezing. Just to add a few things, there are no considered "rule outs" of attention seekers, dominance, and my favorite - imprinted to attention, etc etc. You get the point. 

all of you enjoying the study of dog training (I'll bet there are a few out there) you might enjoy Steven Lindsay's texts "Applied Dog Behavior and Training." 

Have fun! 

Nancy Rhynard


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Rhynard said:


> all of you enjoying the study of dog training (I'll bet there are a few out there) you might enjoy Steven Lindsay's texts "Applied Dog Behavior and Training."
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> Nancy Rhynard


My husband gave me the entire set of 3 books for Christmas! I'm halfway through the first one. Great book!


----------



## Nancy Rhynard (Nov 24, 2008)

Konnie Hein said:


> My husband gave me the entire set of 3 books for Christmas! I'm halfway through the first one. Great book!


 
your husband is a great guy. sounds like a reward is in store. 

Rhynard


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Rhynard said:


> your husband is a great guy. sounds like a reward is in store.
> 
> Rhynard


Ha!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Best set of books out there today!


----------



## Nancy Rhynard (Nov 24, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Best set of books out there today!


then that husband gets a really special reward! :razz: All those spouses and significant others, take note!


those of us who used to have to read research articles for work ( it can be a bore) this author has sifted through the riff raff to bring into collection, sensible and usable information and writes for many in the audience. 

sounds like we could get a new thread going on Lindsay. Well, gotta go and clean those kennels.

Rhynard


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

What I drew from the study was that for dogs, size [of the reward] doesn't matter. _They are more likely to perceive differences in reward frequency._

Example: Two hungry dogs sitting in front of two buckets of treats, same hunger, same number and type of treats. If you're giving one dog one treat every 5 seconds, the dog who gets two treats every 10 seconds is thinking he's getting a raw deal, though the sum is equal. If you're giving one dog only one treat every 5 seconds, but the other dog gets two treats every 5 seconds, then less worries. Twice the sum, though the frequency is equal.

Treats a real rarity in my household, but here's a somewhat relevant observation during feeding time. I feed raw ground beef and chicken, a couple pounds of beef and one or two pieces of chicken per dog. Some dogs eat faster than others, but I feed the beef first, then they can have their favorite for "desert", the chicken. The dog who finishes his beef first, gets the first piece of chicken, and when he gets it, all the other dogs leave their attention from their bowls of beef and sit attentively for their chicken. I have to tell them to finish their bowls first, as they've completely forgotten.

So, unlike the study implies, _they do react to differences in the quality_ of food, wanting for themselves what the other dog is receiving. No reward for behavior involved, just a feeding routine, so attention seekers, dominance, and imprinted to attention, etc etc. all aside.


----------



## Nancy Rhynard (Nov 24, 2008)

Please, nothing personal here but two things:
1. as you interact, you skew your results
2. you have dogs that have expectations and conditioning to type of foods as very well could be in this study. 
3. none of these dogs in the study are screened for dominance, food aversions, etc etc etc.

oops, that's three things. I need to drink more coffee and it's more than a beverage. 

Rhynard


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

1. as you interact, you skew your results
That's a factor of _any study_, and a sterile environment free of all influence is virtually impossible.

2. you have dogs that have expectations and conditioning to type of foods as very well could be in this study. 
Great point! So, the "quality" of reward is subjective to each dog.

3. none of these dogs in the study are screened for dominance, food aversions, etc etc etc.
How is dominance going to affect the aversive behavior due to the _absence of_ a reward?

I'm not at all stating that the study was well planned or even worthy of the ink it _wasn't_ printed on, but you can take from the worst of_ anything_, and learn _something_ from it.

Steven Lindsay's texts are very nice, a great compilation of other people's works, posing a more unified "bigger" picture. But no single source or study can ever attain the "complete" picture. Every curiosity satisfied, will only pose more questions afterward.

Nothing personal, but in order to prevent further derailing the topic, to what depth does Lindsay cover the concept?


----------

