It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Although there is ample data indicating that reward processing plays an important role in human psychopathologies and pharmaco- and psychotherapy treatment response, the corresponding animal-model research needs to be extended to models whose motivational and social dispositions are better generalizable than those of the traditional models. Accordingly, our aim was to develop and assess the reliability and validity of an owner-report rating scale of reward responsiveness in domestic dogs (N = 2149) and then to examine individual differences in reward responsiveness. Responsiveness was categorisable by reward type (ball/toy and food) and exhibited individual variability manifesting in age- and breed-related differences. Rating scale scores were associated with behavioural observation of reward processing, indicating evidence of convergent validity. Ball/toy and food reward responsiveness were associated with owner-rated hyperactivity-impulsivity‚ inattention and with differences in training, indicating evidence of concurrent validity. Extreme (vs. average) reward responsiveness was also predicted by dogs’ hyperactivity-impulsivity and inattention‚ and extreme responsiveness was associated with increased likelihood of physical health and/or social problems. These findings are informative with regard to the dog as an animal model for various human behavioural and cognitive functions‚ and also for the dog in its own right as they are relevant to training and welfare.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Biology, Department of Ethology, Budapest, Hungary; MTA-ELTE ‘Lendulet’ Neuroethology of Communication Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences - Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary
2 Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Biology, Department of Ethology, Budapest, Hungary; Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for the Natural Sciences, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Budapest, Hungary
3 WALTHAM Centre for Pet Nutrition, Freeby Lane, Waltham-on-the-Wolds, Melton Mowbray, UK
4 Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Biology, Department of Ethology, Budapest, Hungary; MTA-ELTE Comparative Ethology Research Group, Budapest, Hungary