Cargando…
Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect
The presence of pictures of eyes reduces antisocial behaviour in humans. It has been suggested that this ‘watching-eye’ effect is the result of a uniquely human sensitivity to reputation-management cues. However, an alternative explanation is that humans are less likely to carry out risky behaviour...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6981177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31980699 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58210-4 |
_version_ | 1783491034102104064 |
---|---|
author | Neilands, Patrick Hassall, Rebecca Derks, Frederique Bastos, Amalia P. M. Taylor, Alex H. |
author_facet | Neilands, Patrick Hassall, Rebecca Derks, Frederique Bastos, Amalia P. M. Taylor, Alex H. |
author_sort | Neilands, Patrick |
collection | PubMed |
description | The presence of pictures of eyes reduces antisocial behaviour in humans. It has been suggested that this ‘watching-eye’ effect is the result of a uniquely human sensitivity to reputation-management cues. However, an alternative explanation is that humans are less likely to carry out risky behaviour in general when they feel like they are being watched. This risk-aversion hypothesis predicts that other animals should also show the watching-eye effect because many animals behave more cautiously when being observed. Dogs are an ideal species to test between these hypotheses because they behave in a risk-averse manner when being watched and attend specifically to eyes when assessing humans’ attentional states. Here, we examined if dogs were slower to steal food in the presence of pictures of eyes compared to flowers. Dogs showed no difference in the latency to steal food between the two conditions. This finding shows that dogs are not sensitive to watching-eyes and is not consistent with a risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6981177 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69811772020-01-30 Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect Neilands, Patrick Hassall, Rebecca Derks, Frederique Bastos, Amalia P. M. Taylor, Alex H. Sci Rep Article The presence of pictures of eyes reduces antisocial behaviour in humans. It has been suggested that this ‘watching-eye’ effect is the result of a uniquely human sensitivity to reputation-management cues. However, an alternative explanation is that humans are less likely to carry out risky behaviour in general when they feel like they are being watched. This risk-aversion hypothesis predicts that other animals should also show the watching-eye effect because many animals behave more cautiously when being observed. Dogs are an ideal species to test between these hypotheses because they behave in a risk-averse manner when being watched and attend specifically to eyes when assessing humans’ attentional states. Here, we examined if dogs were slower to steal food in the presence of pictures of eyes compared to flowers. Dogs showed no difference in the latency to steal food between the two conditions. This finding shows that dogs are not sensitive to watching-eyes and is not consistent with a risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6981177/ /pubmed/31980699 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58210-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Neilands, Patrick Hassall, Rebecca Derks, Frederique Bastos, Amalia P. M. Taylor, Alex H. Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect |
title | Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect |
title_full | Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect |
title_fullStr | Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect |
title_full_unstemmed | Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect |
title_short | Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect |
title_sort | watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6981177/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31980699 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58210-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT neilandspatrick watchingeyesdonotstopdogsstealingfoodevidenceagainstageneralriskaversionhypothesisforthewatchingeyeeffect AT hassallrebecca watchingeyesdonotstopdogsstealingfoodevidenceagainstageneralriskaversionhypothesisforthewatchingeyeeffect AT derksfrederique watchingeyesdonotstopdogsstealingfoodevidenceagainstageneralriskaversionhypothesisforthewatchingeyeeffect AT bastosamaliapm watchingeyesdonotstopdogsstealingfoodevidenceagainstageneralriskaversionhypothesisforthewatchingeyeeffect AT tayloralexh watchingeyesdonotstopdogsstealingfoodevidenceagainstageneralriskaversionhypothesisforthewatchingeyeeffect |