Food Preference Predicts Speed of Approach on a Runway Task by Dogs

Main Article Content

Kristie Elizabeth Cameron
Jane de Garnham
Kristeen Jensen
Lewis A Bizo


The effective and quick assessment of food preference is important when attempting to identify foods that might function as effective reinforcers in dogs. In the current experiment a food preference assessment was conducted where more highly preferred foods were expected to be associated with faster approaches in a subsequent runway task. Eight dogs were tested in a paired preference assessment offering combinations of two of six types of raw food, including the dog’s staple diet, to identify a rank order of preference for the foods. A different raw food was offered as the staple in two preference tests. The results showed that the staple foods were not preferred as highly as the other foods and that each dog displayed unique and stable preferences for the different foods. In the runway task the dogs were required to walk five metres to obtain a small amount of their most preferred, least preferred or staple foods and latency of approach to the foods was recorded. The approach latencies were faster for their most preferred food compared to their least preferred and the staple foods. The use of a runway to assess reinforcer effectiveness combined an effortful behaviour to obtain food while also requiring the dogs to make a choice, thus precluding the need for more complicated and time-consuming methods of preference assessment. The application of this method for fast and effective identification of preferred reinforcers is currently being investigating further to inform pet owners of simple methods to increase their training successes. Owners of raw food fed dogs are advised to conduct a preference assessment to identify their dogs most preferred food for use as a reinforcer during training.

Article Details

Research papers
Author Biographies

Kristie Elizabeth Cameron, Unitec New Zealand

Lecturer, Environmental and Animal Sciences

Jane de Garnham, Unitec New Zealand

Student, Environmental and Animal Sciences

Kristeen Jensen, Unitec New Zealand

Student, Environmental and Animal Sciences

Lewis A Bizo, University of New England

Professor Lewis Bizo

School of Psychology and Behavioural Science


Bentosela, M., Jakovcevic, A., Elgier, A. M., Mustaca, A. E., and Papini, M. R. 2009. Incentive Contrast in Domestic Dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology 123: 125–130.

Bizo, L. A., and Killeen, P. R. 1997. Models of ratio schedule performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes 23: 351–367.

Blackwell, E. J., Twells, C., Seawright, A., and Casey, R. A. 2008. The relationship between training methods and the occurrence of behavior problems, as reported by owners, in a population of domestic dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 3: 207–217.

Bradshaw, J. W. S. 2006. The evolutionary basis for the feeding behavior of domestic dogs. The WALTHAM International Nutritional Sciences Symposia 136: 1927–1931.

Cameron, K. E., Bizo, L. A., and Starkey, N. J. 2013. Food preferences of the Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). International Journal of Comparative Psychology 26: 324–336.

Cameron, K. E., Bizo, L. A., and Starkey, N. J. 2015. Assessment of demand for food under concurrent PR and FR schedules in the brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula). International Journal of Comparative Psychology 28: 1–19.

Cameron, K. E., Clarke, K. H., Bizo, L. A., and Starkey, N. J. 2016. Concurrent progressive-ratio and fixed-ratio schedule performance under geometric and arithmetic progressions by brushtail possums. Behavioural Processes 126: 94–100.

Clay, A. W., Bloomsmith, M. A., Marr, M. J., and Maple, T. L. 2009. Systematic investigation of the stability of food preferences in captive orangutans: implications for positive reinforcement training. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12: 306–313.

Collier, G., Hirsch, E., and Hamlin, P. H. 1972. The ecological determinants of reinforcement in the rat. Physiology and Behavior 9: 705–716.

Dawkins, M. S. 1988. Behavioural deprivation: A central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 209–225.

Dawkins, M. S. 200). Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 3–7.

de Jong, I. C., Wolthuis-Fillerup, M., and van Reenen, C. G. 2007. Strength of preference for dustbathing and foraging substrates in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 24–36.

Deldalle, S., and Gaunet, F. 2014. Effects of 2 training methods on stress-related behaviors of the dog (Canis familiaris) and on the dog-owner relationship. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 9: 58–65.

DeLeon, I. G., and Iwata, B. A. 1996. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 29: 519–533.

Elia, J. B., Erb, H. N., and Houpt, K. A. 2010. Motivation for hay: effects of a pelleted diet on behavior and physiology of horses. Physiology and Behavior 101: 623–7.

Ferrell, F. 1984. Effects of restricted dietary flavor experience before weaning on post-weaning food preference in puppies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 8: 191–198.

Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., and Slevin, I. 1992. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 25: 491–498.

Fisher, W. W., and Mazur, J. E. 1997. Basic and applied research on choice responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 3: 387–410.

Foster, T. M., Sumpter, C. E., Temple, W., Flevill, A., and Poling, A. 2009. Demand equations for qualitatively different foods under fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of three data conversions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 92: 305–326.

Gaalema, D. E., Perdue, B. M., and Kelling, A. S. 2011. Food preference, keeper ratings, and reinforcer effectiveness in exotic animals: the value of systematic testing. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 14: 33–41.

Gourmet PetFood Kitchen Limited. 2015. Woofles Natural Raw Pet Food in Auckland. Retrieved from

Haverbeke, A., Laporte, B., Depiereux, E., Giffroy, J. M., and Diederich, C. 2008. Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team’s performances. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science 113: 110–122.

Hewson-Hughes, A. K., Hewson-Hughes, V.L. Colyer, A., Miller, A. T., McGrane, S. J., Hall, S. R., and Butterwick, R.F. Simpson, S.J. Raubenheimer, D. 2012. Geometric analysis of macronutrient selection in breeds of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris. Behavioural Ecology 24: 293–304.

Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., and Bradshaw, J. W. S. 2004. Dog training methods: Their use effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 63–69.

Holm, L., Jensen, M. B., Pedersen, L. J., and Ladewig, J. 2008. The importance of a food feedback in rooting materials for pigs measured by double demand curves with and without a common scaling factor. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 111: 68–84.

Hursh, S. R., Madden, G. J., Spiga, R., DeLeon, I. G., and Francisco, M. T. 2013. The Translational Utility of Behavioral Economics: The Experimental Analysis of Consumption and Choice. In G. J. Madden, W. V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, and K. A. Lattal (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 2: Translating principles into practice (Vol. 2, pp. 199–224). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Januszczak, I. S., Bryant, Z., Tapley, B., Gill, I., Harding, L., and Michaels, C. J. 2016. Is behavioural enrichment always a success? Comparing food presentation strategies in an insectivorous lizard (Plica plica). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 183: 95–103.

Jarmolowicz, D. P., and Lattal, K. A. 2010. On distinguishing progressive increasing response requirements for reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst 33: 119–125.

Leonardi, R. J., Vick, S. J., and Dufour, V. 2012. Waiting for more: The performance of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) on exchange tasks. Animal Cognition 15: 107–120.

McGuire, K., Bizo, L. A., McBride, A., and Kocek, T. B. In press. Discrimination of food amounts by the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). International Journal of Comparative Psychology.

Payne, E., Bennett, P. C., and McGreevy, P. D. 2015. Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog-human dyad. Psychology Research and Behavior Management 8: 71–79.

Phillips, C. J., Pines, M. K., and Muller, T. 2012. The avoidance of ammonia by sheep. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 7: 43–48.

Rashotte, M. E., Foster, D. F., and Austin, T. 1984. Two-pan and operant lever-press tests of dogs’ preference for various foods. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 8: 231–237.

Riemer, S., Ellis, S. L., Thompson, H., and Burman, O. H. 2018. Reinforcer effectiveness in dogs—The influence of quantity and quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, online.

Seaman, S. C., Waran, N. K., Mason, G., and D’Eath, R. B. 2008. Animal economics: assessing the motivation of female laboratory rabbits to reach a platform, social contact and food. Animal Behaviour 75: 31–42.

Sumpter, C. E., Foster, T. M., and Temple, W. 2002. Assessing Animals’ Preferences: Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 15: 107-126.

Thompson, H., Riemer, S., Ellis, S., and Burman, O. 2016. Behaviour directed towards inaccessible food predicts consumption – a novel food preference test. Animal Cognition 178: 111–117.

Thompson, L. 2016. Raw Essentials FAQ. Retrieved from

Vicars, S. M., Miguel, C. F., and Sobie, J. L. 2014. Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs. Behavioural Processes 103: 75–83.

Vondran, J. C. 2013. A Two Pan Feeding Trial with Companion Dogs: Considerations for Future Testing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kansas State University, Kansas, USA.