Proof Suggests Canines Favor Free Meals to Contrafreeloading

There isn’t any experimental proof to assist the declare that canine desire to work for his or her meals. The truth is, there’s proof that they don’t.

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

A current research discovered that statistically, the group of canine they examined didn’t desire contrafreeloading. They had been prepared to do it. I’ll talk about the outcomes of the research beneath, together with their definitions of “desire” and “prepared.”

However it’s simply as essential to study contrafreeloading findings typically. Research on contrafreeloading have been completed with many species. The research have had massive variability in outcomes (Lentz & Cohen, 1980). Contrafreeloading is way from a common desire; it seems extra to be situational. And the numerous research have yielded patterns that may inform us of conditions through which this attention-grabbing phenomenon is kind of more likely to occur.

Highlights of the Analysis

The seminal Jensen research (1963) is commonly cited to assist contrafreeloading usually, together with in canine. In that research, rats most popular to press a bar to get meals quite than eat it out of a dish. What many individuals miss are the complete outcomes of the research and the experimental follow-ups. Jensen’s rats contrafreeloaded in proportion to their reinforcement historical past with bar urgent—they labored for meals extra once they had constructed a behavior. In 1972, Taylor carried out an experiment much like Jensen’s, however the rats in his research confirmed a powerful desire for the free meals, and an excellent stronger desire free of charge water. Taylor had extra desire checks after the preliminary bar urgent coaching (Jensen had just one desire check), and contrafreeloading decreased over these classes 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 perform of earlier coaching.

“The info 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 might affect whether or not animals selected to contrafreeload. A overview paper in 1997 (Inglis et al.) compiled from earlier research seven gadgets that might improve 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 hassle 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 lightweight or a sound. (Hmm, clicker coaching, anybody?)
• Environmental uncertainty. Novelty, ambiguity, and surprisingness improve contrafreeloading. For example, animals usually tend to contrafreeload if that meals supply seems at an unpredictable location.
• Rearing situations. Being reared underneath situations of sensory deprivation will increase contrafreeloading.
• Manipulation of the atmosphere. Having the ability to management the atmosphere could also be an element that will increase contrafreeloading.

The listing above includes 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 is just not the one reinforcer for meals looking for habits and consuming. This “data speculation” notes that animals acquire details about their atmosphere once they contrafreeload. Such data could possibly be useful when looking for meals sooner or later. This speculation has been borne out in research.

An earlier overview (Osborne, 1977) checked out contrafreeloading experiments by way of 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 results of responding for meals or acquiring it freely are made equally reinforcing (e.g., by equating stimulus change situations for each alternate options), animals present a close to unique desire for acquiring their meals freely.”

Scientists have famous one different pattern 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 data as wild animals do.

The Canine Research

The research of contrafreeloading in canine (Rothkoff et al., 2024) is freely accessible on-line and really readable. Because the outcomes had been that canine had been “prepared” to contrafreeload however didn’t “desire” it, it’s essential to find out how the scientists outlined these phrases.

Right here’s how the experiment was arrange. There have been 4 “acclimation” classes 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 classes, there have been 10 experimental classes. In these classes, half of the canine’ meal was within the snuffle mat, and half within the tray of meals. All acclimation and experimental classes had been video recorded.

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

Outcomes underneath these definitions had been:

Desire. Solely one among 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 desire.

Willingness. Thirty of 38 canine had been “prepared” to contrafreeload. Eight weren’t prepared.

We are able to think about 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 talent 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 a bell or click on when the canine grabs a chunk of meals from the mat. That absence may make contrafreeloading much less reinforcing.

There are two different attention-grabbing findings within the research: canine’ exercise degree didn’t correlate with a desire free of charge meals or contrafreeloading, however canine with larger physique situation scores (extra obese) had been extra more likely to contrafreeload.

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

Enrichment

The place does this go away 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:

• Canines have a behavioral drive to earn their preserve
• All canine are contrafreeloaders
• Canines will work for his or her meals whereas passing up the identical meals free of charge
• Canines would quite work for his or her meals than not

The message is typically 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 introduced 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 submit. However listed below are some assets.

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

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

And listed below are three research which may inform our selections about enrichment. The Breakfast Impact research (Miller & Bender, 2012) confirmed proof that canine, similar to individuals, most likely be taught higher when their stomachs usually are not empty. The Eureka Impact research (McGowan et al., 2014) supplied proof that fixing issues could make canine really feel good. Lastly, a captivating paper in 2024 (Veissier et al.) instructed that alternatives for animals to achieve data 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 Word

I exploit meals toys. This research and the remainder of the contrafreeloading analysis don’t discourage me from providing them sparsely. 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 higher than the worth of the meals concerned, as in looking 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 scenario.
• 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 approach that stresses them out. For 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 informed me he finds Kongs, particularly frozen ones, fairly “meh.” I give him Westpaw toys as a substitute.

The analysis with canine is just one research, with recognized limitations. Extra analysis must be completed. However with the facility of the remainder of the analysis behind it, the research is compelling. Scientists have been finding out the “when” and the “why” of contrafreeloading for many years. It’s time for us to contemplate 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 Conduct (pp. 1665-1670). Cham: Springer Worldwide Publishing.
• Jensen, G. D. (1963). Desire for bar urgent over “freeloading” as a perform 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 data acquire. Behaviour, 139(9), 1195-1209.
• McGowan, R. T., Rehn, T., Norling, Y., & Keeling, L. J. (2014). Optimistic 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: Canines (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 & Conduct, 5(3), 221-235.
• Rothkoff, L., Feng, L., & Byosiere, S. E. (2024). Home pet canine (Canis lupus familiaris) don’t present a desire to contrafreeload, however are prepared. Scientific Stories, 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 data. 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 picture.
• Photos of Zani on the snuffle mat and Clara enjoying with the flirt pole copyright Eileen Anderson.