Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
 |
|
Rooney, N. J., Bradshaw, J. S. W., & Robinson, I. H. (2000). A comparison of dog–dog and dog–human play behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 66(3), 235–248. Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard (3/3/25, 6:32 AM) Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard (3/3/25, 7:56 AM) |
 |
| Resource type: Journal Article Language: en: English Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00078-7 ID no. (ISBN etc.): 0168-1591 BibTeX citation key: Rooney2000 Email resource to friend View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: General Keywords: Animals, Play Creators: Bradshaw, Robinson, Rooney Collection: Applied Animal Behaviour Science |
Views: 71/71
|
| Abstract |
|
In the popular literature, it is often assumed that a single conceptual framework can be applied to both dog–dog and dog–human interactions, including play. We have, through three studies, tested the hypothesis that dog–dog and dog–human play are motivationally distinct. In an observational study of dogs being walked by their owners (N=402), dogs which were walked together, and had opportunities to play with one another, played with their owners with the same frequency as dogs being walked alone. This finding was supported by a questionnaire survey of 2585 dog owners in which dogs in multi-dog households played slightly more often with their owners than dogs in single-dog households. The performance of dog–dog play does not, therefore, seem to suppress the dogs' motivation to play with their owners as would be predicted if they were motivationally interchangeable. In an experimental comparison of dog–dog and dog–human toy-centred play, the dogs were more likely to give up on a competition, to show and present the toy to their play partner, if that partner was human. When two toys were available, dogs playing with other dogs spent less time showing interest in both toys and possessed one of the toys for longer, than dogs playing with people. Overall, the dogs were more interactive and less likely to possess the object when playing with a person. We conclude that dog–dog and dog–human play are structurally different, supporting the idea that they are motivationally distinct. We therefore suggest there is no reason to assume that the consequences of dog–dog play can be extrapolated to play with humans.
|
| Quotes |
|
p.247
From the conlusions in which they claim that dog-gog play has motivational differences and sturcutural differences.
"Dog–human games are frequently claimed to have effects upon the relationship between the players. Consistently allowing a dog to win games is alleged to result in the dog perceiving itself as stronger than its owner, leading to subsequent conflict and behavioural problems McBride, 1995. This idea is based on extrapolation of intraspecific behaviours, particularly those of the wolf. Winning possession of toys is described as simulating the winning of the battle for the best meat at the end of a pack hunt Appleby, 1997, p. 182., which can have consequences for the social hierarchy. This idea assumes that play is a contest and the goal is to possess the toy. Although this was the case during dog–dog play, we saw no evidence for it during dog–human play. Since dogs react differently to human and dog play partners, we see no reason to assume that the consequences of dog–human games are the same as dog–dog games. Decreased competitiveness may mean that the outcome of dog–human games is less likely to affect the players’ relationship than has been suggested by some authors." Appleby, D., 1997. Ain’t Misbehavin: A Good Behaviour Guide for Family Dogs. Broadcast Books, Bristol. Added by: Mark Grimshaw-AagaardKeywords: Animals Play |