Evidence Suggests Dogs Prefer Free Food to Contrafreeloading

There is no such thing as a experimental proof to help the declare that canine choose to work for his or her meals. In truth, there’s proof that they don’t.

Contrafreeloading is the habits proven when an animal prefers to work for meals (“earned meals”) slightly than take similar meals that’s freely out there from one other, close by supply (“free meals”). — Inglis, 2022

A latest examine discovered that statistically, the group of canine they examined didn’t choose contrafreeloading. They have been keen to do it. I’ll talk about the outcomes of the examine beneath, together with their definitions of “choose” and “keen.”

However it’s simply as necessary to find out about contrafreeloading findings generally. Research on contrafreeloading have been carried out with many species. The research have had massive variability in outcomes (Lentz & Cohen, 1980). Contrafreeloading is much from a common choice; it seems extra to be situational. And the numerous research have yielded patterns that may inform us of conditions by which this attention-grabbing phenomenon is kind of prone to occur.

Highlights of the Analysis

The seminal Jensen examine (1963) is commonly cited to help contrafreeloading typically, together with in canine. In that examine, rats most popular to press a bar to get meals slightly than eat it out of a dish. What many individuals miss are the complete outcomes of the examine and the experimental follow-ups. Jensen’s rats contrafreeloaded in proportion to their reinforcement historical past with bar urgent—they labored for meals extra after they had constructed a behavior. In 1972, Taylor carried out an experiment much like Jensen’s, however the rats in his examine confirmed a powerful choice for the free meals, and a fair stronger choice totally free water. Taylor had extra choice checks after the preliminary bar urgent coaching (Jensen had just one choice check), and contrafreeloading decreased over these periods as time handed from the preliminary coaching. Lentz and Cohen (1980) labored with pigeons to research whether or not earlier coaching with the contrafreeloading technique of acquiring meals had an impact. In addition they discovered that response charges within the presence of free meals elevated as a operate of earlier coaching.

“The information counsel that quantity of coaching impacts contrafreeloading and that this variable could also be partly liable for the massive variability in responding noticed amongst research inspecting responding within the presence of free meals.” — Lentz & Cohen, 1980, p. 48

The analysis continued, and scientists found many different components that would affect whether or not animals selected to contrafreeload. A overview paper in 1997 (Inglis et al.) compiled from earlier research seven gadgets that would enhance or lower contrafreeloading . They used them to create a fuzzy logic mannequin of contrafreeloading. Listed below are the seven gadgets they thought-about. Supporting references for every of those are within the Inglis paper.

Prior coaching. A reinforcement historical past with the tactic of accessing the meals will increase contrafreeloading.

Deprivation degree. This has each elevated and decreased contrafreeloading in research, relying on different variables.

Effort required. The bigger the trouble wanted to entry the meals, the much less doubtless animals are to contrafreeload.

Stimulus change. A change within the atmosphere that correlates with the presentation of the earned meals will increase contrafreeloading. This is perhaps a light-weight or a sound. (Hmm, clicker coaching, anybody?)

Environmental uncertainty. Novelty, ambiguity, and surprisingness enhance contrafreeloading. As an example, animals usually tend to contrafreeload if that meals supply seems at an unpredictable location.

Rearing circumstances. Being reared underneath circumstances of sensory deprivation will increase contrafreeloading.

Manipulation of the atmosphere. With the ability to management the atmosphere could also be an element that will increase contrafreeloading.

The listing above contains components that may have an effect on whether or not animals contrafreeload in numerous conditions. However they don’t clarify why. One well-supported speculation is that the meals itself shouldn’t be the one reinforcer for meals in search of habits and consuming. This “info speculation” notes that animals acquire details about their atmosphere after they contrafreeload. Such info could possibly be useful when in search of meals sooner or later. This speculation has been borne out in research.

An earlier overview (Osborne, 1977) checked out contrafreeloading experiments by a habits evaluation lens and analyzed the reinforcement schedules recognized within the research. Osborne was apparently the primary to notice the results of “stimulus change,” one issue listed above. After reviewing the analysis as much as that time, Osborne states, ” . . . when the implications of responding for meals or acquiring it freely are made equally reinforcing (e.g., by equating stimulus change circumstances for each options), animals present a close to unique choice for acquiring their meals freely.”

Scientists have famous one different development that helps the data speculation: home species are likely to contrafreeload much less. That is considered as a result of their wants are taken care of by people, and so they don’t have a urgent want to hunt info as wild animals do.

The Canine Examine

The examine of contrafreeloading in canine (Rothkoff et al., 2024) is freely out there on-line and really readable. For the reason that outcomes have been that canine have been “keen” to contrafreeload however didn’t “choose” it, it’s necessary to find out how the scientists outlined these phrases.

Right here’s how the experiment was arrange. There have been 4 “acclimation” periods the place the canine gained expertise with consuming from a snuffle mat and have become acquainted with a setup of a snuffle mat and a tray of “free” meals. After the acclimation periods, there have been 10 experimental periods. In these periods, half of the canine’ meal was within the snuffle mat, and half within the tray of meals. All acclimation and experimental periods have been video recorded.

A choice for contrafreeloading was decided by measuring how usually the canine went to the snuffle mat first. A willingness to contrafreeload was decided by measuring how usually the canine approached and interacted with the snuffle mat earlier than ending the meals within the tray.

Outcomes underneath these definitions have been:

Choice. Solely one in every of 38 canine most popular to contrafreeload, going first to the snuffle mat 80% of the time. Twenty-two canine went first to the tray for a big majority of the time, and fifteen canine didn’t present a powerful choice.

Willingness. Thirty of 38 canine have been “keen” to contrafreeload. Eight weren’t keen.

We are able to take into account the traits of snuffle mats in view of Inglis et al.’s seven components affecting contrafreeloading. In comparison with many food-based enrichment toys for canine, snuffle mats are low effort. They don’t require the ability of puzzle feeders or frozen Kongs. I discover it attention-grabbing that even with a relatively straightforward “earned meals” alternative, most canine most popular the free meals. However mats additionally lack a stimulus change—there isn’t any bell or click on when the canine grabs a bit of meals from the mat. That absence might make contrafreeloading much less reinforcing.

There are two different attention-grabbing findings within the examine: canine’ exercise degree didn’t correlate with a choice totally free meals or contrafreeloading, however canine with increased physique situation scores (extra obese) have been extra prone to contrafreeload.

Lastly, there’s a considerate itemizing of the restrictions of the examine on the finish of the writeup.

Enrichment

The place does this depart us with enrichment? In dozens of on-line articles on enrichment for canine, you will note contrafreeloading referenced. You will notice such absolute and non-evidence-based statements as:

Canine have a behavioral drive to earn their preserve

All canine are contrafreeloaders

Canine will work for his or her meals whereas passing up the identical meals totally free

Canine would slightly work for his or her meals than not

The message is usually extra nuanced, particularly within the final couple of years. However you may nonetheless discover loads of articles that current contrafreeloading as an unquestioned attribute of canine. Furthermore, contrafreeloading is offered as a justification for enrichment actions that contain canine working for meals.

How this details about canine and contrafreeloading would possibly have an effect on our enrichment selections is past the scope of this put up. However listed below are some assets.

I’ve written about assessing whether or not a canine actually enjoys a meals toy, slightly than assuming they do as a result of they’re “imagined to.”

Linda Case at The Science Canine has a complete weblog put up about research that assess whether or not meals toys have useful qualities for canine.

And listed below are three research which may inform our selections about enrichment. The Breakfast Impact examine (Miller & Bender, 2012) confirmed proof that canine, similar to folks, most likely study higher when their stomachs are usually not empty. The Eureka Impact examine (McGowan et al., 2014) supplied proof that fixing issues could make canine really feel good. Lastly, an interesting paper in 2024 (Veissier et al.) instructed that alternatives for animals to achieve info ought to be central to designing enrichment actions. This paper has a wealth of data that may assist us take into consideration enrichment in new methods.

A Private Observe

I take advantage of meals toys. This examine and the remainder of the contrafreeloading analysis don’t discourage me from providing them moderately. Listed below are some issues I do and don’t do with meals toys.

I do use meals toys with canine with cognitive dysfunction (straightforward ones).

I do search for toys and actions the place the canine’s enthusiasm appears a lot better than the worth of the meals concerned, as in looking out video games.

I do use meals toys with easy-to-access, high-value meals for delay counterconditioning or simply to sweeten troublesome conditions.

I do assist my canine with these final cussed items on the finish in the event that they ask me to.

I don’t give a canine a difficult meals toy on an empty abdomen, nor do I practice in that state of affairs.

I don’t ask a canine to work for meals when they’re sick or have a low urge for food.

I don’t ask a canine to work for meals in a method that stresses them out. As an example, deal with scatters can stress some intense useful resource guarders. Equally, I don’t do meals chase video games with canine who gulp it frantically.

I don’t ask a canine to work together with a toy they discover un-fun. Lewis has instructed me he finds Kongs, particularly frozen ones, fairly “meh.” I give him Westpaw toys as a substitute.

The analysis with canine is just one examine, with recognized limitations. Extra analysis must be carried out. However with the ability of the remainder of the analysis behind it, the examine is compelling. Scientists have been learning the “when” and the “why” of contrafreeloading for many years. It’s time for us to think about these findings within the canine coaching world.

Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

Associated Posts

References

Inglis, I. R., Forkman, B., & Lazarus, J. (1997). Free meals or earned meals? A overview and fuzzy mannequin of contrafreeloading. Animal behaviour, 53(6), 1171-1191.

Inglis, I. R. (2022). Contrafreeloading. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Habits (pp. 1665-1670). Cham: Springer Worldwide Publishing.

Jensen, G. D. (1963). Choice for bar urgent over “freeloading” as a operate of variety of rewarded presses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(5), 451.

Lentz, B. E., & Cohen, S. L. (1980). The impact of prior coaching on the contrafreeloading phenomenon. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(1), 48-50.

Lindqvist, C., Schütz, Ok., & Jensen, P. (2002). Purple jungle fowl have extra contrafreeloading than white leghorn layers: Impact of meals deprivation and penalties for info acquire. Behaviour, 139(9), 1195-1209.

McGowan, R. T., Rehn, T., Norling, Y., & Keeling, L. J. (2014). Constructive have an effect on and studying: exploring the “Eureka Impact” in canine. Animal cognition, 17, 577-587.

Miller, H. C., & Bender, C. (2012). The breakfast impact: Canine (Canis familiaris) search extra precisely when they’re much less hungry. Behavioural processes, 91(3), 313-317.

Osborne, S. R. (1977). The free meals (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: A overview and evaluation. Animal Studying & Habits, 5(3), 221-235.

Rothkoff, L., Feng, L., & Byosiere, S. E. (2024). Home pet canine (Canis lupus familiaris) don’t present a choice to contrafreeload, however are keen. Scientific Studies, 14(1), 1314.

Taylor, G. T. (1972). A limitation of the contrafreeloading phenomenon. Psychonomic Science, 29(3), 173-174.

Veissier, I., Lesimple, C., Brunet, V., Aubé, L., & Botreau, R. (2024). Rethinking environmental enrichment as offering alternatives to amass info. animal, 101251.

Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

Picture Credit

Maned wolf from Wikimedia Commons, consumer Jonathan Wilkins , underneath this license.

Purple junglefowl from Wikimedia Commons, consumer Charles J. Sharp , underneath this license. Modification: I cropped the photograph.

Photographs of Zani on the snuffle mat and Clara enjoying with the flirt pole copyright Eileen Anderson.