Most domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer food to petting: population, context, and schedule effects in concurrent choice.
Dogs choose food over petting when both are easy to get, but thinning the food schedule quickly shifts them toward social interaction.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers let family dogs pick between two options. One lever gave a piece of dry food. Another lever gave a quick pet from the owner. The team then made food harder to get. They stretched the time between food pellets. They watched how the dogs split their time.
The study used a single-case design. Each dog served as its own control. Sessions happened in a quiet room. No extra training was given. The only change was the food schedule.
What they found
When food came fast, dogs almost ignored petting. They stayed at the food lever. When the food schedule grew lean, the picture flipped. Dogs spent less time at the food lever. Some started visiting the owner for pets. The change was large enough to see by eye.
Lean food schedules also made behavior less predictable. One dog might take a quick pet then return to food. Another might sit for a long stroke. The exact pattern varied, but the trend was clear. Less easy food meant more social contact.
How this fits with other research
Fernandez et al. (2023) extends this idea to shelter dogs. They used an automated feeder that dropped food every minute. Kennel dogs moved more and barked less. Both studies show that timing of food, not just the food itself, drives behavior.
Older rat work sets the groundwork. Blackman (1970), Smith (1967), and Nelson et al. (1978) all found that longer gaps between food pellets create "schedule-induced" side behaviors. The dog study mirrors this: when food is scarce, dogs ramp up an alternate activity — seeking petting.
Locurto et al. (1980) adds a twist. They showed that schedule-induced drinking can actually reinforce lever pressing in rats. Likewise, the dogs’ petting time rose only when the food schedule was lean. The context of periodic feeding gives social contact its power.
Why it matters
You can use lean food schedules to boost social behavior in therapy animals or pets. If you want a dog to approach for praise, deliver kibble on a slow fixed-time schedule. The same rule may apply to kids who prefer edible reinforcers. Thin the edible rate and you might see more interest in social rewards like praise or high-fives. Start with a dense edible schedule, then gradually space it out while watching for new, desired responses.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set a fixed-time 2-min food delivery, then praise the dog (or client) during the gaps; gradually lengthen the interval to build tolerance for social rewards.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Previous research has indicated both petting (McIntire & Colley, 1967) and food (Feuerbacher & Wynne, 2012) have reinforcing effects on dog behavior and support social behavior towards humans (food: Elliot & King, 1960; social interaction: Brodbeck, 1954). Which type of interaction dogs prefer and which might produce the most social behavior from a dog has not been investigated. In the current study, we assessed how dogs allocated their responding in a concurrent choice between food and petting. Dogs received five 5-min sessions each. In Session 1, both food and petting were continuously delivered contingent on the dog being near the person providing the respective consequence. Across the next three sessions, we thinned the food schedule to a Fixed Interval (FI) 15-s, FI 1-min, and finally extinction. The fifth session reversed back to the original food contingency. We tested owned dogs in familiar (daycare) and unfamiliar (laboratory room) environments, and with their owner or a stranger as the person providing petting. In general, dogs preferred food to petting when food was readily available and all groups showed sensitivity to the thinning food schedule by decreasing their time allocation to food, although there were group and individual differences in the level of sensitivity. How dogs allocated their time with the petting alternative also varied. We found effects of context, familiarity of the person providing petting, and relative deprivation from social interaction on the amount of time dogs allocated to the petting alternative.
Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2014 · doi:10.1002/jeab.81