Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task

This study investigates the influence of owners on their dogs’ performance in a food choice task using either different or equal quantities of food. Fifty-four pet dogs were tested in three different conditions. In Condition 1 we evaluated their ability to choose between a large and small amount of food (quantity discrimination task). In Condition 2 dogs were again presented with a choice between the large and small food quantity, but only after having witnessed their owner favouring the small quantity. In Condition 3 dogs were given a choice between two equally small quantities of food having witnessed their owner favouring either one or the other. A strong effect of the owner on the dogs’ performance was observed. In Condition 1 dogs as a group chose significantly more often the large food quantity, thus showing their ability to solve the quantity discrimination task. After observing their owner expressing a preference for the small food quantity they chose the large quantity of food significantly less than in the independent choice situation. The tendency to conform to the owner’s choice was higher when the dogs had to choose between equally small quantities of food (Condition 3) rather than between a large and a small one (Condition 2). These results provide evidence that dogs can be influenced by their owners even when their indications are clearly in contrast with direct perceptual information, thus leading dogs to ultimately make counterproductive choices.     

More or less: spontaneous quantity discrimination in the domestic cat

We examined spontaneous quantity discrimination in untrained domestic cats in three food choice experiments. In Experiment 1, we presented the cats with two different quantities of food in eight numerical combinations. Overall, the subjects chose the larger quantity more often than the smaller one, and significantly so when the ratio between the quantities was less than 0.5. In Experiment 2, we presented the cats with two pieces of food in four different size combinations. Again, subjects chose the larger piece above chance, although not in the combination where the largest item was presented. In Experiment 3, a subset of the cats was presented multiple times with two different quantities of food, which were hidden from view. In this case, the cats did not choose the larger quantity more often than the smaller one, suggesting that in the present experiments they mainly used visual cues when comparing quantities. We conclude that domestic cats are capable of spontaneously discriminating quantities when faced with different numbers or sizes of food items, and we suggest why they may not always be motivated to choose the larger quantity. In doing so, we highlight the advantages of testing spontaneous choice behavior, which is more likely to reflect animals’ everyday manner of responding than is the case when training them in order to test their absolute limits of performance which may not always coincide with their daily needs.     

Relative quantity judgment by Asian elephants (Elephas maximus)

This study investigated whether Asian elephants can make relative quantity judgment (RQJ), a dichotomous judgment of unequal quantities ordered in magnitude. In Experiment 1, elephants were simultaneously shown two baskets with differing quantities of bait (up to 6 items). In Experiment 2, elephants were sequentially presented with baits, which could not be seen by elephants in their total quantities. The task of elephants was to choose the larger quantity in both experiments. Results showed that the elephants chose the larger quantity with significantly greater frequency. Interestingly, the elephants did not exhibit disparity or magnitude effects, in which performance declines with a smaller difference between quantities in a two-choice task, or the total quantity increases, respectively. These findings appear to be inconsistent with the previous reports of RQJ in other animals, suggesting that elephants may be using a different mechanism to compare and represent quantities than previously suggested for other species.     

Are dogs (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis familiaris</Emphasis>) misled more by their owners than by strangers in a food choice task?

Dogs are highly skilled in understanding a large variety of human social cues and use them appropriately to solve a number of different cognitive tasks. They rely on human signals even when these are contradictory or misleading and ultimately prevent them from correctly solving a task. In the following two experiments, we investigated whether the owner and a stranger differently influenced dogs’ choices in food discrimination tasks. In Experiment 1, 48 dogs were tested in 3 different conditions: (1) choice between a large and a small amount of dog pellets with no demonstration; (2) choice between a large and a small amount of dog pellets after having witnessed the owner/stranger favouring the small quantity; (3) choice between two single food pellets after observing the owner/stranger choosing one of them. In Experiment 2, 48 dogs could choose between two foods of different palatability: in Condition 1, dogs chose between a slice of sausage and a dry pellet with no demonstration. In Condition 2, the same choice was available but with a person (owner/stranger) showing a preference for the dry pellet. In Condition 3, dogs chose between a single dry pellet and 8 slices of sausage, with the person (owner/stranger) showing a preference for the pellet. In both experiments, dogs conformed to the human’s indications even though these led to the selection of the less advantageous option (i.e. the smaller amount of food in Experiment 1 or the low quality food in Experiment 2). However, the owner and the stranger did not differently influence the dogs’ behaviour. Results show that dogs are willing to follow a person’s indication even when this is visibly (if perhaps only mildly) counterproductive to them and that they are socially prepared to rely equally on cues given by the owner and an unfamiliar friendly person.     

Estimating and operating on discrete quantities in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus)

This study investigated the ability of 3 male orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus; 1 subadult, 2 adults) to estimate, compare, and operate on 2 sets of small quantities (1-6 cereal bits). Experiment 1 investigated the orangutans' ability to choose the larger of 2 quantities when they were presented successively as opposed to simultaneously, thus being perceptually unavailable at the time of choice. Experiment 2 investigated the orangutans' ability to select the larger quantity after the original quantities were augmented or reduced. Orangutans were capable of selecting the larger of 2 quantities in Experiment 1. There was also some evidence from Experiment 2, albeit weaker, that orangutans may mentally combine quantities (but not dissociate) to obtain the larger of 2 quantities. This study suggests that orangutans use a representational mechanism (especially when comparing quantities) to select the larger of 2 sets of items.     

Can dogs count?

Numerical competencies have been thoroughly examined in several species, yet relatively few studies have examined such processes in the domestic dog. In an initial experiment, procedures from numerical studies of chimpanzees (0010 and 0015) were adapted for use with 27 domestic dogs. Subjects in these experiments watched as different quantities of food were sequentially dropped into each of two bowls. The subjects were then allowed to select and consume the contents of one of the bowls. Although dogs excelled in a 1 vs 0 condition, their performance failed to significantly surpass chance across all other ratios. In a second experiment with a single subject (a rough collie named Sedona), the procedure was revised so that non-food stimuli were presented simultaneously to the dog on two magnet boards. If Sedona chose the board with the majority of the items, she was rewarded with a piece of food hidden underneath the board. If she made an incorrect choice, she received no reinforcement. Interestingly, Sedona's performance far exceeded that of the dogs in Experiment 1. Implications of these findings for the study of domestic dogs are discussed.     

Making choices in anticipation of similar future choices can increase self-control

Two experiments tested the efficacy of linking a current choice with similar future choices as a means of increasing self-control. Participants were offered choices between smaller and sooner vs. larger and later amounts of money (Experiment 1, n = 60) or food (Experiment 2, n = 34). After a small-large pair for which the participant preferred the smaller reward was found, a choice between the same pair was offered as the 1st of 5 such choices to be offered over a period of weeks. The majority of participants in both experiments who chose between all 5 smaller and all 5 larger rewards chose the larger rewards. One third of participants in Experiment 1 who could choose independently on each pair in the series reversed their previous preference and chose the larger reward in the context of the series. These results suggest that self-control can be enhanced by viewing one's current choice as predictive of future choices.     

Inhibitory control and response selection in problem solving: how cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) overcome a bias for selecting the larger quantity of food

When presented with a choice between 1 and 3 pieces of food in a type of reversed contingency task, 4 cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) consistently chose the 3 pieces of food and received nothing, even though the choice of 1 piece would have yielded 3. However, in a task in which the tamarins received the 1 piece of food when they chose it, all subjects learned to select 1 over 3. Thus, the tamarins' prior failure on the reversed contingency task did not result entirely from an inherent inability to suppress the prepotent response of reaching to the larger of 2 quantities of food. After the experience of selecting the smaller quantity and receiving it, all of the tamarins solved the version of the reversed contingency task that they failed initially. These results suggest that the tamarins' initial failure may have reflected a difficulty with selecting an alternative response option.     

Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): the effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item

The authors examined quantity-based judgments for up to 10 items for simultaneous and sequential whole sets as well as for sequentially dropped items in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), bonobos (Pan paniscus), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). In Experiment 1, subjects had to choose the larger of 2 quantities presented in 2 separate dishes either simultaneously or 1 dish after the other. Representatives of all species were capable of selecting the larger of 2 quantities in both conditions, even when the quantities were large and the numerical distance between them was small. In Experiment 2, subjects had to select between the same food quantities sequentially dropped into 2 opaque cups so that none of the quantities were ever viewed as a whole. The authors found some evidence (albeit weaker) that subjects were able to select the larger quantity of items. Furthermore, the authors found no performance breakdown with the inclusion of certain quantities. Instead, the ratio between quantities was the best performance predictor. The authors conclude that quantity-based judgments rely on an analogical system, not a discrete object file model or perceptual estimation mechanism, such as subitizing.     

Erratum to: Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) accurately compare poured liquid quantities

Although many studies have shown that nonhuman animals can choose the larger of two discrete quantities of items, less emphasis has been given to discrimination of continuous quantity. These studies are necessary to discern the similarities and differences in discrimination performance as a function of the type of quantities that are compared. Chimpanzees made judgments between continuous quantities (liquids) in a series of three experiments. In the first experiment, chimpanzees first chose between two clear containers holding differing amounts of juice. Next, they watched as two liquid quantities were dispensed from opaque syringes held above opaque containers. In the second experiment, one liquid amount was presented by pouring it into an opaque container from an opaque syringe, whereas the other quantity was visible the entire time in a clear container. In the third experiment, the heights at which the opaque syringes were held above opaque containers differed for each set, so that sometimes sets with smaller amounts of juice were dropped from a greater height, providing a possible visual illusion as to the total amount. Chimpanzees succeeded in all tasks and showed many similarities in their continuous quantity estimation to how they performed previously in similar tasks with discrete quantities (for example, performance was constrained by the ratio between sets). Chimpanzees could compare visible sets to nonvisible sets, and they were not distracted by perceptual illusions created through various presentation styles that were not relevant to the actual amount of juice dispensed. This performance demonstrated a similarity in the quantitative discrimination skills of chimpanzees for continuous quantities that matches that previously shown for discrete quantities.     

Relative quantity judgments in South American sea lions (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Otaria flavescens</Emphasis>)

There is accumulating evidence that a variety of species possess quantitative abilities although their cognitive substrate is still unclear. This study is the first to investigate whether sea lions (Otaria flavescens), in the absence of training, are able to assess and select the larger of two sets of quantities. In Experiment 1, the two sets of quantities were presented simultaneously as whole sets, that is, the subjects could compare them directly. In Experiment 2, the two sets of quantities were presented item-by-item, and the totality of items was never visually available at the time of choice. For each type of presentation, we analysed the effect of the ratio between quantities, the difference between quantities and the total number of items presented. The results showed that (1) sea lions can make relative quantity judgments successfully and (2) there is a predominant influence of the ratio between quantities on the subjects’ performance. The latter supports the idea that an analogue representational mechanism is responsible for sea lions’ relative quantities judgments. These findings are consistent with previous reports of relative quantities judgments in other species such as monkeys and apes and suggest that sea lions might share a similar mechanism to compare and represent quantities.     

Smelling more or less: Investigating the olfactory experience of the domestic dog

The performance of tracking dogs and drug-, disease-, and explosives-detection dogs is a testament to trained dogs’ olfactory acuity. The olfactory experience of an untrained dog, by contrast, has not been well documented. In the current research we begin to remedy that by testing untrained pet dogs’ olfactory perception of quantity. While previous research found that dogs could discriminate visible quantities of more or less food (Prato-Previde, Marshall-Pescini, & Valsecchi, 2008), our results find that, by contrast, companion dogs do not reliably discriminate quantities when the food can be smelled but not seen. Sixty-one percent of dogs (39 of 64), given a choice between closed plates with one and five morsels of food, approached plates with the larger quantity: not significantly more than approached plates with the lesser quantity (binomial, p = .169). We did find that during dogs’ initial investigation of both food amounts, subjects gave more attention to the plate containing the larger quantity (binomial, p < 0.001). In a second condition, we replicated, with closed plates, Prato-Previde et al.’s (2008) finding that owner interest in a plate holding a lesser quantity of food reliably leads dogs to approach that plate (binomial, p < 0.001). Though research has demonstrated dogs’ preference for a larger amount of food ( Ward & Smuts, 2007), in a third condition testing the effect of adding a strong odor to a visibly larger food quantity, we found that the addition of odor often reversed that preference (44/69 dogs; p < .03). Finally, we consider the methodological implications of this work on future dog cognition studies.     

Mangabeys (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Cercocebus torquatus lunulatus</Emphasis>) solve the reverse contingency task without a modified procedure

Problem solving often relies on generating new responses while inhibiting others, particularly prepotent ones. A paradigm to study inhibitory abilities is the reverse contingency task (Boysen and Berntson in J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:82–86, 1995), in which two different quantities of food are offered to an individual who receives the array he did not choose. Therefore, mastery of the task demands selecting the smaller quantity to obtain the larger one. Several non-human primates have been tested in the reverse contingency task. To date, only great apes and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) have succeeded in the original task, with no need of procedural modifications as the large-or-none contingency, correction trials or symbolic stimuli substituting for actual food quantities. Here, four mangabeys were presented with two stimulus arrays of one and four raisins in the context of the reverse contingency task. Three of them learned to perform the task well above chance without a modified procedure. They also reached above-chance performance when presented with two stimulus arrays of zero and four raisins, despite the initial difficulty of choosing a null quantity. After a period of 7–10 months, in which the animals were not tested on any task, all three subjects continued to perform well, even when presented with novel quantity pairs.     

The development of prudence in the face of varying future rewards

The choice to delay gratification, opting for a greater reward later instead of a smaller reward now, has been used as a measure of preschoolers' ability to make future-oriented decisions. The present studies investigated to what extent these choice tasks reflect children's ability to make choices in favour of their future self. In Experiment 1, preschoolers were presented with choices between a smaller immediate reward of one sticker and larger delayed rewards varying in amount from two to five stickers. Whereas 3-year-olds showed no increased tendency to choose the delayed option as quantity increased from two to five, 4-year-olds' future-oriented choices reflected the value of the delayed reward. In Experiment 2, preschoolers chose between immediate and delayed rewards that were equal in amount and varied between one and four stickers. Three-year-olds reliably chose the immediate reward and showed no differentiation among rewards, whereas 4-year-olds chose in a manner that suggested they were trying to satisfy both immediate and future desires. Together these results support the notion that future-oriented prudence reflects growth in concern for the future self.     

Anticipation of future events in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and rats (Rattus norvegicus): tests of the Bischof-Kohler hypothesis

The Bischof-Kohler hypothesis holds that nonhuman animals cannot anticipate a future event and take appropriate action when that event involves satisfaction of a need not currently experienced. Tests of the Bischof-Kohler hypothesis were performed with squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus) and rats (Rattus norvegicus). In experimental trials with both species, a nonthirsty animal had its water bottle removed and then chose between a smaller and larger quantity of food. Consumption of the food induced thirst. Choice of the smaller quantity led to the return of the water bottle sooner than choice of the larger quantity. Monkeys reversed their baseline preference for the larger quantity of food when the experimental contingencies were introduced, but rats continued to prefer the larger amount. Although the rat findings support the Bischof-Kohler hypothesis, the monkey findings challenge it.     

The representations underlying infants' choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes

A new choice task was used to explore infants' spontaneous representations of more and less. Ten- and 12-month-old infants saw crackers placed sequentially into two containers, then were allowed to crawl and obtain the crackers from the container they chose. Infants chose the larger quantity with comparisons of 1 versus 2 and 2 versus 3, but failed with comparisons of 3 versus 4, 2 versus 4, and 3 versus 6. Success with visible arrays ruled out a motivational explanation for failure in the occluded 3-versus-6 condition. Control tasks ruled out the possibility that presentation duration guided choice, and showed that presentation complexity was not responsible for the failure with larger numbers. When crackers were different sizes, total surface area or volume determined choice. The infants' pattern of success and failure supports the hypothesis that they relied on object-file representations, comparing mental models via total volume or surface area rather than via one-to-one correspondence between object files.     

得失情境下的图形框架对跨期选择倾向的影响

为分离言语表述的干扰,实验采用简单选择任务,通过2(图形框架)×2(跨期选择)×2(得失情境)被试内实验设计探讨得失情境下图形框架对个体跨期选择的影响。结果发现:(1)在突出时间条件下,被试更倾向于选择小而即时的选项,而在突出金额条件下,被试选择小而即时和大而延时的概率没有差异;(2)收益情境中,个体更多地选择大而延时的选项,而在损失情境中,个体选择即时损失的概率更高。结果表明,跨期选择中个体的决策偏好会随着得失情境及决策选项描述方式的变化而变化。     

Slim by design: Redirecting the accidental drivers of mindless overeating

We first choose what to eat and then we choose how much to eat. Yet as consumer psychologists, we understand food choice much better than food consumption quantity. This review focuses on three powerful drivers of food consumption quantity: 1) Sensory cues (how your senses react), 2) emotional cues (how you feel), and 3) normative cues (how you believe you are supposed to eat). These drivers influence consumption quantities partly because they bias our consumption monitoring—how much attention we pay to how much we eat. To date, consumption quantity research has comfortably focused on the first two drivers and on using education to combat overeating. In contrast, new research on consumption norms can uncover small changes in the eating environment (such as package downsizing, smaller dinnerware, and reduced visibility and convenience) that can be easily implemented in kitchens, restaurants, schools, and public policies to improve our monitoring of how much we eat and to help solve mindless overeating. It is easier to change our food environment than to change our mind.     

Quantity judgments of auditory and visual stimuli by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Many species can choose between two visual sets of stimuli on the basis of quantity. This is true when sets are both visible, or are presented one set at a time or even one item at a time. However, we know comparatively little about how well nonhuman animals can compare auditory quantities. Here, three chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) chose between two sets of food items when they only heard each item fall into different containers rather than seeing those items. This method prevented the chimpanzees from summing the amount of visible food they saw because there were no visual cues. Chimpanzees performed well, and their performance matched that of previous experiments with regard to obeying Weber's law. They also performed well with comparisons between a sequentially presented auditory set and a fully visible set, demonstrating that duration of presentation was not being used as a cue. In addition, they accommodated empty sets into these judgments, although not perfectly. Thus, chimpanzees can judge auditory quantities in flexible ways that show many similarities to how they compare visual quantities.     

Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) accurately compare poured liquid quantities

Although many studies have shown that nonhuman animals can choose the larger of two discrete quantities of items, less emphasis has been given to discrimination of continuous quantity. These studies are necessary to discern the similarities and differences in discrimination performance as a function of the type of quantities that are compared. Chimpanzees made judgments between continuous quantities (liquids) in a series of three experiments. In the first experiment, chimpanzees first chose between two clear containers holding differing amounts of juice. Next, they watched as two liquid quantities were dispensed from opaque syringes held above opaque containers. In the second experiment, one liquid amount was presented by pouring it into an opaque container from an opaque syringe, whereas the other quantity was visible the entire time in a clear container. In the third experiment, the heights at which the opaque syringes were held above opaque containers differed for each set, so that sometimes sets with smaller amounts of juice were dropped from a greater height, providing a possible visual illusion as to the total amount. Chimpanzees succeeded in all tasks and showed many similarities in their continuous quantity estimation to how they performed previously in similar tasks with discrete quantities (for example, performance was constrained by the ratio between sets). Chimpanzees could compare visible sets to nonvisible sets, and they were not distracted by perceptual illusions created through various presentation styles that were not relevant to the actual amount of juice dispensed. This performance demonstrated a similarity in the quantitative discrimination skills of chimpanzees for continuous quantities that matches that previously shown for discrete quantities.