Do Dogs Prefer Food or Petting? A Study in India
Table of contents
A source-backed Study Brief about a 2026 study of food and petting rewards in free-ranging dogs.
Research & Evidence | Study Brief | Updated September 11, 2026
The short answer
A 2026 Animal Cognition study compared food and petting rewards in free-ranging dogs in West Bengal, India. On the first choice-test day, the dogs preferred the person who provided food. From the second day onward, the group-level choice was no different from chance.
That result does not mean that every dog prefers food first and petting later. The study began with 99 adult dogs, but only 61 approached an unfamiliar experimenter closely enough to enter the ten-day study. Of those, 45 completed every choice test with a clear choice and were included in the final analysis. The result therefore describes a selected group of approachable free-ranging dogs in a defined field protocol.
The useful lesson is narrower: an immediate reward and a repeated social association are not the same question. A food reward can draw attention quickly. Repeated, voluntary interactions can change what a dog chooses to do next. Neither finding is a universal training rule or a reason to approach an unfamiliar dog.
What the study measured
The field work took place between February and June 2023 in Gayeshpur, Kataganj and Kalyani in Nadia district, West Bengal, India. The researchers tested adult free-ranging dogs that were unfamiliar to the experimenters. Dogs were identified by location and visible features so that the same individuals could be followed across the study.
The first screening asked whether a dog would approach an unfamiliar person within about 0.8 metres in 60 seconds without showing fear or aggression. This was not a minor detail. It determined who could enter the reward comparison.
During Days 1 to 5, two unfamiliar experimenters worked with each dog. One provided food and the other provided petting. The assignment was randomized, so the same person was not always the food provider. The food reward was a piece of raw chicken weighing about 8 to 10 grams. The petting protocol used six strokes from the top of the head to the neck, followed by about 10 seconds of gazing.
The dogs then took part in choice tests through Day 10. The two experimenters stood several metres away from the dog and called it using the same vocalization. Neither experimenter offered a reward during the choice test. A choice counted when the dog approached within about 0.8 metres and gazed at the selected person. The researchers recorded the selected provider, approach latency, trial number and a socialization index.
An independent rater coded 20% of the videos for choice. The paper reports high inter-rater agreement, with Cohen's kappa of 0.947.
The sample changed as the study progressed
| Stage | Dogs remaining | What the stage means |
|---|---|---|
| Approachability screening | 99 tested | Adult free-ranging dogs were screened in the field. |
| Entered the ten-day study | 61 | Dogs approached the unfamiliar experimenter closely enough to continue. |
| Final choice analysis | 45 | Dogs completed all choice tests and made clear choices throughout. |
The percentages and statistical results in the paper's models therefore belong to the relevant subset, not to every free-ranging dog in the three study locations. Dogs that avoided the approachability test or did not make a clear choice were not represented in the final analysis.
What changed after the first interaction?
The first choice favored the food provider. The paper reports a significant Day 1 preference for the food provider, with chi-square of 5.00 and p = 0.025.
The later pattern was different. From Day 2 onward, the group did not show a consistent preference for either provider. The paper's discussion describes food as a stronger short-term motivator, while repeated interactions with either reward contributed to positive social associations over time.
Approach latency also changed during the early familiarization period. It decreased across Days 1 to 5, and higher socialization-index values were associated with faster approaches in the reported model. These measures describe behavior within the experiment. They do not provide a general sociability score for a pet dog.
The study also found that choice was not perfectly consistent across repeated tests. Agreement across Days 1 to 5 was below what would be expected by chance but not statistically significant, and the later test period showed the same caution. A single choice should not be treated as a stable preference without considering the setting and the dog.
Evidence-led insights
Immediate motivation is not the same as lasting association
The Day 1 food preference answers a short-term question: which person did the dog approach first after the two reward types were introduced? The later no-preference pattern answers a different question about repeated exposure. The study does not support a simple ranking in which food always matters more than social contact.
This is an inference from the study's time pattern, not a universal finding about every dog. A different food, a different form of touch, a familiar person or a different environment could change the response.
Sample flow changes the meaning of the result
The final analysis did not include every dog the researchers encountered. The dogs had to approach an unfamiliar person and then make clear choices over ten tests. That makes the result useful for understanding the behavior of the participating group, but it limits how far the result can be carried.
The study does not tell us how fearful, aggressive, injured or less social dogs would respond. It also does not tell us whether a household dog, a shelter dog or a dog in another country would show the same pattern.
Reward type is tied to the person and the protocol
The experimenters were unfamiliar to the dogs, wore similar clothing, alternated sides, and followed defined calling, food and petting procedures. The dog was choosing between two people after repeated sessions, not choosing between two abstract rewards in isolation.
That distinction matters when reading the result. A food reward may attract a dog quickly in one setting, while a calm and familiar person may matter more in another. The paper does not rank food and petting as universal tools.
What the study does not show
It does not show that:
- every dog prefers food during a first encounter;
- petting is automatically welcome or calming;
- an unfamiliar dog should be approached, touched or fed;
- food is the best reward for household training;
- a socialization index measures welfare, personality or trust; or
- the result transfers from selected free-ranging dogs in West Bengal to all dogs.
The source studied a specific behavior in a specific population. It is evidence about that design, not a prescription for handling dogs in public.
A practical boundary for pet families
Use a dog's body language and willingness to approach as context, not as a guarantee of safety. Do not test this study's protocol on an unfamiliar dog. A dog that steps away, freezes, crouches, turns its head, growls or avoids contact is communicating a boundary. Give it space and follow local safety guidance.
For a household dog, food and social interaction can both be part of a relationship, but the suitable reward depends on the individual dog, the task and the moment. The study cannot choose a reward for a particular pet, and it does not replace humane training or professional behavior advice when a problem is persistent or unsafe.
Bottom line
In this field study, food drew more choices on the first test day. After repeated interactions, the group no longer showed a consistent preference between the food and petting providers. The change is interesting because it separates an immediate motivator from a repeated social experience.
The result belongs to 45 selected free-ranging dogs whose behavior could be followed across the study. It does not establish what every dog wants, what every unfamiliar dog will tolerate or which reward is best for a household training plan.
Sources
- Nandi, S., Lahiri, A., Pal, T. S. et al. "Treats or affection? Understanding reward preferences in Indian free-ranging dogs." Animal Cognition 29, 31 (2026). Springer Nature
- PubMed record
- PMC full-text record
This is a single-study brief, not a systematic review or meta-analysis. The study was conducted in India with free-ranging dogs and should not be treated as VEP-owned data or as a universal behavior rule. This article is informational and does not provide veterinary diagnosis or treatment advice.