Abstract
It
has often been suggested that intraspecific dominance relationships are
established through play. By analogy, it is also claimed that the
outcome of competitive games can affect dog–human relationships. This
paper experimentally tests the latter idea. Fourteen Golden Retrievers
were each subjected to two treatments; 20 sessions of a tug-of-war game
with the experimenter which they were allowed to win, and 20 sessions
which they lost. Their relationship with the experimenter was assessed,
via a composite behavioural test, once at the outset and once after each
treatment. Principal components analysis allowed the 52 behavioural
measures to be combined into nine underlying factors. Confidence (the factor most closely corresponding to conventional dominance) was unaffected by the treatments. Dogs scored higher for obedient attentiveness after play treatments, irrespective of whether they won or lost, and demandingness scores increased with familiarity of the test person. The 10 most playful dogs scored significantly higher for playful attention seeking
after winning than after losing. We conclude that, in this population,
dominance dimensions of the dog–human relationship are unaffected by the
outcome of repetitive tug-of-war games. However, we suggest that the
effects of games may be modified by the presence of play signals, and
when these signals are absent or misinterpreted the outcome of games may
have more serious consequences. Games may also assume greater
significance for a minority of “potentially dominant” dogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.