Fig 3 :
During the experimental phase , there were three conditions : 1 ) test , 2 ) social facilitation control , and 3 ) asocial control . In the test condition , the dog was placed in an enclosure with a human on the other side of the barrier . If the dog pressed the button , food was dispensed , and the human ate it . If the dog attempted to push the button , but failed , the human pretended to eat food , since the assumption was that the dog intended to push the button . In the social facilitation control , the food dispenser was placed where the human could not access it . The point of this condition was to confirm that the dog intended to deliver food to the human and rule out the possibility that the presence of the person was somehow cuing the behavior of button pushing . The asocial control condition took place without a human , thereby addressing the possibility that the pushing of the button was occurring simply based on reinforcement history .
Fig 5 : Free interaction session . The owner and the human partner with which the subject was tested on that day ( helpful or unhelpful ) knelt opposite each other in the middle of circles that were marked on the floor with tape ( diameter = 2 m ). The subject was released by its owner to roam free in the room , and to interact freely with the human partner or its owner , for 5 minutes .
There is one last key point to mention about the study ’ s design . After the experimental phase , the owner and the human assistant sat in two circles that were a short distance apart ( FIG 5 ). The dog was free to wander the area and could approach ( or not ) the owner or the human participant . Neither person could do anything to try to get the dog ’ s attention , but they could pet the dog for five seconds if the dog approached . This test was conducted to see if there was any sign of preference for the helpful participants over the unhelpful participants .
By now , you ’ re probably ready to hear the results . We ’ re afraid they are a little anticlimactic — the test condition and human type
Fig 4 :
Fig 5 :
( helpful or unhelpful ) had no effect ! There was also no difference in the dogs ’ free-roaming interactions with the unhelpful versus helpful humans . This type of result — where there is no difference between the groups — is called a negative result .
No one wants to get a negative result . After all , the study was conducted because the authors made a prediction that the factor being tested was important and would influence behavior . That being said , negative results are actually incredibly important . If a particular factor isn ’ t relevant , or dogs do not possess a certain ability , we need to know that , too ! If researchers never published negative results , you might see a lot of scientists wasting their time conducting the same ( or similar ) studies repeatedly — because they
The APDT Chronicle of the Dog | Spring 2022 41