↓ Skip to main content

Dogs Do Not Show Pro-social Preferences towards Humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dogs Do Not Show Pro-social Preferences towards Humans
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01416
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mylène Quervel-Chaumette, Gaëlle Mainix, Friederike Range, Sarah Marshall-Pescini

Abstract

Pro-social behaviors are defined as voluntary actions that benefit others. Comparative studies have mostly focused on investigating the presence of pro-sociality across species in an intraspecific context. Taken together, results on both primates and non-primate species indicate that reliance on cooperation may be at work in the selection and maintenance of pro-social sentiments. Dogs appear to be the ideal model when investigating a species' propensity for pro-sociality in an interspecific context because it has been suggested that as a consequence of domestication, they evolved an underlying temperament encouraging greater propensity to cooperate with human partners. In a recent study, using a food delivery paradigm, dogs were shown to preferentially express pro-social choices toward familiar compared to unfamiliar conspecifics. Using the same set-up and methods in the current study, we investigated dogs' pro-social preferences toward familiar and unfamiliar human partners. We found that dogs' pro-social tendencies did not extend to humans and the identity of the human partners did not influence the rate of food delivery. Interestingly, dogs tested with their human partners spent more time gazing at humans, and did so for longer after food consumption had ended than dogs tested with conspecific partners in the initial study. To allow comparability between results from dogs tested with a conspecific and a human partner, the latter were asked not to communicate with dogs in any way. However, this lack of communication from the human may have been aversive to dogs, leading them to cease performing the task earlier compared to the dogs paired with familiar conspecifics in the prior study. This is in line with previous findings suggesting that human communication in such contexts highly affects dogs' responses. Consequently, we encourage further studies to examine dogs' pro-social behavior toward humans taking into consideration their potential responses both with and without human communication.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Hungary 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 58 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 24%
Psychology 11 18%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 8%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 22 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,250,796
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,598
of 34,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,534
of 328,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#51
of 456 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,151 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 456 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.