The connection between dogs and humankind goes back centuries and so does the inquisitiveness to know more about these creatures, especially their interaction and relation with people.

Food has always been an important part of the friendship between the canines and people and their bond for the last 10,000 years is a testimony to that. By sharing food with wolves our forefather built a bond that continues even today as dogs are inspired to perform and do deeds for the sake of treats and goodies!

Food sharing being the key to the bond between the two species, may turn out to be a one-way affair, as canines do not seem to reciprocate in the same way to humans who feed them.

According to smithsonianmag.com this is the crux of the study published in PLOS One, a peer reviewed journal which was done by dog researcher Jim McGetrick and his team. McGetrick is a comparative psychologist at the University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna in Austria. He discovered during experiments in the laboratory that dogs receiving food when humans pushed a button did not return this favour by doing the same for people.

According to McGetrick: “In terms of dog domestication and the evolution of dogs as a species, their cooperativeness with humans might not be related to this form of cooperation: this reciprocal cooperation, where I help you and then you help me at some point in the future.”

Also read: It is a dog’s life for the Chinese official dog!

In earlier studies it was found that dogs repaid other generous dogs with food, and took the initiative to rescue distressed trapped humans. His study McGetrick says is a novel one as it looks at the reciprocity aspect between people and dogs and his team wanted to know if dogs who are fed will reward food to beneficent humans.

In order to know more, the team of researchers trained 37 pet dogs who were taught to hit a button to release food from a dispenser. To make their study meaningful, the selected canines were from 10 different breeds and mixes and had diverse idiosyncrasies. While some were delicate hitting gently on the button, others were not as they chewed on it. Interestingly only one dog pressed the button with its hind leg.

“The personalities definitely varied hugely,” says McGetrick.

With the every dog identifying the button with food, the button was kept in the next room with a stranger there. The canine was kept in a different room which had a food dispenser. The rooms were separated with a wire mesh, thus dog was able to see that the human was controlling the food button. While some pressed the button helping the dog get food, others pressed a decoy one which didn’t release any food.

Observing them McGetrick said: “When they were with the unhelpful human, it surprised me how big of a deal it was for them when they didn't get food in a situation where they expected to get food.” Following this behaviour of humans, the dogs pleaded and made a fuss. “It could look effectively like throwing a tantrum,” averred McGetrick.

The situation was reversed and the working button was with the dog while the food dispenser landed in the other room and of course kibble was replaced with chocolate candy! Now, the canines weren’t so anxious to press the button to help the humans next door get food.

Also read: Animal activists rescue 68 dogs heading for China's dog meat festival

A notable observation was that the dogs couldn’t or didn’t seem to differentiate between those people who had helped them get food by pressing the button and those who didn’t. The canines pressed the button equally for both groups.

Interacting with humans physically after every button pressing exercise was over, the dogs did not hold any grouse against those who did not help them get food. They approached the volunteers —  helpful or not – equally.

As per McGetrick: “[The result] could indicate that dogs might not necessarily … relate to something like gratitude. Or “they don't necessarily strongly regard or consider others in their actions” in an attentionally blind kind of way. Having said that he added, “I would highlight that this was a very specific experimental context.”

McGetrick said that the findings don’t necessarily rule out reciprocity by dogs with humans. The outcome may have been specific to the conditions of the experiment like the unfamiliarity of the animals with the humans. The dogs may have been different and helpful in the case of their owners. Or perhaps the button pushing was little beyond the canines. He thought it is also likely that dogs didn’t see themselves as food providers to people. The man-animal relationship was more like that of a master-servant rather than that of equal footing partners.

Also read: A start-up that cares for pet dogs who have lost owners to Covid-19

Jeffrey Stevens, a psychology researcher at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who was not part of the study group observed: “The key thing is, are we asking the question in the right way that the animals understand?” Dogs in particular, they have a completely different world than we do right there.” The canines sense their surroundings with a sense of smell than sight so the experiments needed to in tune with their perspective. Stevens said: “You want to make sure that you've really tried to set up a situation where the animals have the best opportunity to demonstrate their abilities.”

Speaking in the same vein, Angie Johnston, a psychology researcher at Boston College who was also not a participant in the study, thought more research was needed to rule out all the possibilities. “Knowing about the dog-human interaction is important for things like training service dogs and assistance dogs. Anytime we know more about the human-dog connection and where it came from and how it evolved, that can inform our training processes with those populations,” remarked Johnston.