Psychological Bulletin: Toward A Psychology of Human-Animal Relations

Psychological Bulletin
Toward a Psychology of Human–Animal Relations

Catherine E. Amiot and Brock Bastian
Online First Publication, November 3, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038147
CITATION
Amiot, C. E., & Bastian, B. (2014, November 3). Toward a Psychology of Human–Animal
Relations. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038147
Psychological Bulletin © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 141, No. 1, 000 0033-2909/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038147
Toward a Psychology of Human–Animal Relations
Catherine E. Amiot Brock Bastian

Université du Québec à Montréal University of New South Wales
Nonhuman animals are ubiquitous to human life, and permeate a diversity of social contexts by providing
humans with food and clothing, serving as participants in research, improving healing, and offering
entertainment, leisure, and companionship. Despite the impact that animals have on human lives and vice
versa, the field of psychology has barely touched upon the topic of human–animal relations as an
important domain of human activity. We review the current state of research on human–animal relations,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
showing how this body of work has implications for a diverse range of psychological themes including
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
evolutionary processes, development, normative factors, gender and individual differences, health and
therapy, and intergroup relations. Our aim is to highlight human–animal relations as a domain of human
life that merits theoretical and empirical attention from psychology as a discipline.
Keywords: human–animal relations, development and norms, individual differences, well-being and
health, intergroup relations
Animals have accompanied humans for thousands of years, of three Americans live with animals, spending more than $55
forging a strong interdependence between humans and other spe- billion annually on their welfare (American Pet Products Associ-
cies (de Waal, 2009). In fact, animals are ubiquitous to human ation, 2013). Dogs—a species that is particularly useful to humans
lives: We currently eat an inordinate number of animals (i.e., (Serpell, 1995; Udell & Wynne, 2008) and sensitive to our non-
approximately 9 billion each year in the United States; Joy, 2010) verbal behaviors (Hare, Brown, Williamson, & Tomasello, 2002;
and use animals for clothing, for testing a range of human prod- Hare & Tomasello, 2005)—play a central role in search and rescue
ucts, and for gaining basic insights into human biology and be- and policing, and can be trained to guide the blind (Wells, 2009).
havior. Animals entertain us, are represented in various forms of Human–animal relations hence represent an important and com-
art, are part of our collective legends and histories, and they have plex domain of human activity that merits theoretical and empir-
been used as emblems and symbols of human attributes (e.g., ical attention in its own right (Herzog, 2011; Rozin, 2006; Serpell,
Bryant, 1979; Herzog & Galvin, 1992; Leach, 1964; Lévi-Strauss, 2009). Throughout this review and on the basis of prior writings,
1966). Animals feature prominently in the socialization and enter- we use the term animal to refer to species other than homo sapiens
tainment of children (Serpell, 1999a). Among animals, pets are in order to distinguish nonhuman animals from human beings (e.g.,
attributed a special status, and they are recognized by approxi- Bekoff, 2007; S. Knight & Herzog, 2009; Plous, 2003).
mately 90% of their owners as fully fledged family members In this review we examine research focusing on human–animal
(Cain, 1983; Carlisle-Frank & Frank, 2006; Cohen, 2002; Gallup, relations, a field of enquiry that pertains specifically to the inter-
1997; Voith, 1985; Voith, Wright, & Danneman, 1992). Two out actions that exist between humans and animals. In this approach,
and in contrast to most psychological research conducted up to
now, animals are not used as a testing ground for psychological
(human) theory nor are they attributed a passive role—they are
investigated in the context of their interactions with humans.
Catherine E. Amiot, Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à
Indeed, traditionally, psychological research involving animals has
Montréal; Brock Bastian, School of Psychology, University of New South
been used to develop models of human behavior and to inform our
Wales.
This research was funded by grants from the Social Sciences and understanding of fundamental human processes. The topic of
Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Fond pour la Recherche human–animal relations hence differs from this comparative ap-
en Santé du Québec to Catherine E. Amiot and by fellowships from the proach, as it directly captures the links and the dynamic interplay
Australian Research Council to Brock Bastian (DP110102632). We would between humans and animals. The focus, therefore, of human–
like to thank Matthew Hornsey and Harold Herzog, who provided con- animal relations research is on reciprocal and interactive relations
structive feedback on this article. We also thank Maude Roberge, Sarah between humans and animals. Whereas this perspective contrasts
Bourdeau, Moseni Mulemba, and Martin Roy, for their precious help with sharply with prior psychological research where animals occupy a
the literature search, downloading and managing the references, and put-
more instrumental role, it is needed to account for a large domain
ting together Table 1; and Elsie Amiot, for serving as a source of inspira-
of human activity: how we interact with and relate to animals.
tion.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Catherine Drawing on theoretical and empirical work conducted in soci-
E. Amiot, Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, ology, anthropology, neuroscience, medicine, veterinary studies,
C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Quebec H3C 3P8, Canada. zoology, animal welfare, public health, psychiatry, criminology,
E-mail: amiot.catherine@uqam.ca and psychology, we aim to provide the first comprehensive review
1
2 AMIOT AND BASTIAN
of this domain. Our review of this literature is selective, and in literature on human–animal relations and, most importantly, the
places interpretative, aiming to draw attention to the psychological goal of the article, which is to demonstrate how a variety of
themes and processes evident within this domain. To this extent we psychological principles apply to the topic of human–animal rela-
aim to address a critical gap within psychological knowledge and tions. In line with this conventional organization of psychological
theorizing. To date, the discipline of psychology has been remark- research, we first cover evolutionary factors that lead us either to
ably slow to investigate the topic of human–animal relations (S. focus on and move toward animals or to fear some animals.
Knight & Herzog, 2009; Melson, 2002; Plous, 1993a, 2003) and Second, we present developmental evidence showing how the
has been somewhat anthropocentric in its orientation. This is likely nature of our contacts with animals forges longer term human–
due to the peripheral status that animals have traditionally occu- animal relationships over the life span. Third, we review evidence
pied in our ethical frameworks, and the tendency not to recognize showing how normative factors shape human–animal relations.
their psychological qualities (cf. Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam, & Fourth, we analyze how individual differences, ideological beliefs,
Radke, 2012; Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007). Conversely, the and gender operate in human–animal relations. Fifth, we review
field of anthrozoology—which focuses on human–animal interac- evidence showing how the presence of animals is linked to human
tions— has provided a context within which these themes have health and vice versa. Sixth, we examine human–animal relations
been popularized (Hines, 2003; Podberscek, Paul, & Serpell, from an intergroup relations perspective. In keeping with our aim
2000). Furthermore, human–animal relations have been investi- to provide a platform for more systematic psychological research
gated within different disciplines, including sociology, economics, into human–animal relations, following each of these six sections,
geography, history, literature, and philosophy. Adopting a psycho- we review the strength of the prior empirical evidence and make
logical approach brings a complementary perspective to the topic recommendations for future research.
of human–animal relations.
We believe that psychology is well positioned to contribute
Literature Search Procedure
structured and comprehensive insights into human–animal rela-
tions. In this review we directly investigate the psychological Our literature search involved two basic procedures: generating
processes that are involved in the interactions between humans and a pool of potentially relevant articles and selecting a subset of
animals as a distinct domain of human behavior. By providing a articles and book chapters for inclusion in the review. In the initial
comprehensive platform for thinking about human–animal rela- search cycle, we conducted searches in the PsycINFO database for
tions, our aim is to provoke a range of novel research questions, all articles and chapters containing specific keywords or combi-
focusing both on the causes and the broader consequences of nations of keywords. When a keyword yielded too many refer-
human–animal relations. In fact, our relations with animals not ences (more than 1,000) and/or a majority of these references did
only have consequences for animals (Plous, 1993a) but also have not pertain to a psychological perspective per se, these keywords
repercussions for human health (Fine, 2006; Herzog, 2011) and were crossed with another keyword to ensure a more focused
even impact on our associations with fellow humans (Ascione, search. The following combinations of keywords were used: ani-
1992; Ascione & Weber, 1996; Bastian, Costello, Loughnan, & mal welfare ⫹ attitudes, interspecies interactions ⫹ attitudes,
Hodson, 2012; Costello & Hodson, 2010). interspecies interactions ⫹ identification, interspecies interac-
We believe that the current review is timely. Global concern for tions ⫹ well-being, interspecies interactions ⫹ quality of life,
the treatment of animals, and how we relate to animals, is increas- morality ⫹ pets or animals, attachment ⫹ pets or animals, lone-
ing. Over the last 40 years, there has been a strong social move- liness ⫹ pets or animals, terror management theory ⫹ pets or
ment toward the recognition of animal rights (Pinker, 2011; Regan, animals, social support ⫹ pets or animals, symbolism ⫹ animals,
1983, 2001; Singer, 1981). Greenpeace and the World Wildlife ritual ⫹ animals. The following keywords were also used on their
Fund now have memberships exceeding 10 million. People for the own: animal-assisted therapy, animal cruelty, animal domestica-
Ethical Treatment of Animals counted 18 members in 1981, tion, animal rights. The work of the following authors was sys-
250,000 in 1990, and more than 3 million in 2012. Growing animal tematically reviewed given their contribution to the psychological
welfare concerns motivate resistance to the impact of human approach to human–animal relations and/or to the field of human–
activity on animals’ natural habitats and the use of animals for animal relations more generally: Erika Friedmann, Harold Herzog,
food and other resources (Foer, 2009; Singer, 2009). This in- Scott Plous, and James Serpell.
creased concern for animal rights is occurring in a context in which These searches generated 1,744 articles, books, and book chap-
human (over)population of the planet is growing exponentially. ters. We then examined the abstracts of the references generated by
Together, these two trends will continue to place pressure on this literature search strategy. Given the focus of this review on
already scarce resources and increase resource conflicts. Under- psychological themes relevant to human–animal relations, refer-
standing the psychological factors that shape human–animal rela- ences were retained if they included psychological variables and
tions is necessary in order to effectively navigate this resource covered direct interactions and interrelationships between humans
bottleneck. and animals. We hence excluded ethological or animal cognition
We organize the existing human–animal relations literature into articles looking at the behavior of animals independent of human
six main sections that reflect traditional psychological themes. interactions. We also excluded work that employs animals as a
These themes are often used to organize psychological research as control or baseline group, rather than as relational targets. To avoid
a field of study, and they allow coverage of a large and inclusive redundancy, we excluded empirical articles and book chapters that
scope of psychological phenomena, ranging from themes that overlapped in their conclusions and/or that presented less robust
touch on biology up to societal and intergroup relations. Employ- empirical data. In addition to these references, we included refer-
ing such a structure is particularly appropriate given the breadth of ences recommended by expert colleagues in the field of human–
PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN–ANIMAL RELATIONS 3
animal relations, and articles that were cited in some articles (but & De Block, 2011). For example, in a series of experiments,
that were not identified through the PsycINFO search) and that met children were more attentive to animals than they were to inani-
our selection criteria. This resulted in 391 references on human– mate objects. In free-play sessions, children aged 1–3 interacted
animal relations kept in the review; out of these, 199 were empir- more with live animals than with interesting toys. Further, they
ical articles (see Table 1 for an overview). behaved differently toward the animals than the toys, talking about
Table 1 presents the empirical articles that we relied on to the animals more than the toys and asking more questions about
review the evidence in the field, draw general conclusions for each them (LoBue, Bloom Pickard, Sherman, Axford, & DeLoache,
of the six themes, and make recommendations for future research 2013).
directions. In contrast, books and book chapters are cited in the According to Lorenz’s (1943) “cute response” (neoteny), hu-
review to make theoretical points. For topics that included a large mans are innately drawn to young animals, perhaps given that they
number of articles (e.g., how the presence of animals is associated share perceptual features with human infants, such as big eyes,
with human well-being), we also relied heavily on major reviews large foreheads, and soft contours. In support of this contention,
on the topic (i.e., Barker & Wolen, 2008; Friedmann, 2006; Her- faces with infant features—including baby animal faces—were
zog, 2011; Siegel, 2011). rated by adult participants as more attractive than those without
Prior to commencing our review, it is important to note the (Archer & Monton, 2011). Providing some support for the notion
significant lack of cross-cultural research on human–animal rela- that the cute response arises in conjunction with responsiveness to
tions, or for that matter converging evidence from non-Western human infants or young animals, women’s greater appeal for a dog
contexts. Table 1 reveals that although drawn from sometimes (compared to men’s) was stronger when the dog was a puppy than
diverse populations, most of the evidence is from Western cul- when the same dog got older (Fridlund & MacDonald, 1998).
tures. Although it is tempting to interpret this culturally lopsided Relatedly, it has been argued that the human tendency to care and
nature of the evidence as indicative that human–animal relations feel empathy for animals may have been a trait that was selected
are of greater interest within Western contexts, this kind of cultural for, as it could reflect a more general capacity to care for human
bias is not uncommon across a number of research domains, infants. Concern for animal welfare may have also given certain
including psychology (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). We groups of humans an evolutionary advantage, as it allowed effi-
return to a discussion of cultural differences and how they may cient domestication of animals and herding (Bradshaw & Paul,
shape human–animal relations at the end of this review. 2010).
Evolutionary Factors Fear

For more than 99% of human history, people have lived in Biological predispositions may also lead to distancing from
hunter– gatherer bands totally and intimately involved with other animals. Modern humans remain “biologically prepared” to fear
living organisms (E. O. Wilson, 1993), suggesting that the evolu- animals that threatened the survival of the human species during
tion of human responses to animals was shaped by these interac- the course of evolution (Öhman & Mineka, 2001; Seligman, 1971).
tions. A large number of well-controlled laboratory studies support the
evolutionary origins of human fear of some animals (for reviews,
see Öhman & Mineka, 2001; Ulrich, 1993). For example, exper-
Biophilia
imental evidence revealed that participants were faster to detect the
One of the most often cited theories as to why humans are presence of a threatening animal (i.e., snake, spider) than a non-
interested in animals is the biophilia hypothesis (e.g., Kellert & threat-relevant stimulus (flower, mushroom; Öhman, Flykt, &
Wilson, 1993; E. O. Wilson, 1984). Biophilia refers to the ten- Esteves, 2001; for a replication, see Lipp, Derakshan, Waters, &
dency of humans to focus on life and lifelike processes (E. O. Logies, 2004). Participants also attributed more attentional re-
Wilson, 1984); it is the innately emotional affiliation that humans sources to and more rapidly recognized animals that typically elicit
have toward other life forms (E. O. Wilson, 1993). Revised theo- fear (snakes, spiders) than animals that do not (bird, fish; Waters,
retical accounts of the biophilia hypothesis state that biophilia is Lipp, & Randhawa, 2011; see also LoBue & DeLoache, 2008). In
not a single instinct but a complex of learning rules that trigger a other experiments, infants and young children paid special atten-
variety of emotional reactions to animals, which are themselves tion to snakes and then also learned to fear snakes after listening to
shaped by culture (E. O. Wilson, 1993; see also Kahn, 1997, for a a frightened human voice paired with images of serpents (DeLo-
developmental perspective). Interestingly, the feelings molded by ache & LoBue, 2009; see LoBue, Rakison, & DeLoache, 2010, for
these learning rules fall along several emotional spectra: from a review), suggesting that fear responses can be acquired early.
attraction to aversion, from awe to indifference, from peacefulness
to fear-driven anxiety. In this sense, biophilia refers to a selective Methodological Implications and Future
attentiveness to other forms of life, which is neither inherently
Research Directions
positive nor negative. In line with the biophilia hypothesis, the
human mind may be wired to think differently about animals than Together, these findings provide mostly experimental evidence
inanimate objects, suggesting that part of the brain evolved to for the fact that evolved responses to animals both orient us toward
specialize in processing information about animals (Herzog, 2010; and propel us from animals: As can be seen in Table 1, 18 out of
see also New, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2007). the 19 studies reviewed on this theme were experimental. Whereas
The biophilia hypothesis has received empirical support (e.g., the prior evidence reported in Table 1 has employed mostly
for reviews, see DeLoache & Pickard, 2010; Kahn, 1997; cf. Joye cognitive (n ⫽ 11 studies) and emotional measures (n ⫽ 7 studies)
4
Table 1
Summary of Empirical Research on Human–Animal Relations
Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study
Evolutionary factors
Biophilia
LoBue et al. (2013) United States Children 11–40 months old 96 (3 studies) Experimental Children talked more about animals
than the toys after interacting with
them
Archer & Monton (2011) United Convenience sample 163 Experimental, quasi- Faces with infant features rated as more
Kingdom experimental attractive than those without
Fridlund & MacDonald (1998) United States People approaching a 107 Quasi-experimental Greater gender discrepancies in
puppy on campus approaches to younger puppy
Fear
Öhman et al. (2001) Sweden University students 89 (3 studies) Experimental Faster detection of threatening animals
Lipp et al. (2004) Australia Undergraduate students 259 (4 studies) Experimental Faster detection of threatening animals
Waters et al. (2011) Australia Undergraduate students 154 Experimental, quasi- Attribution of more attentional
experimental resources and more rapid recognition
of animals who typically elicit fear
LoBue & DeLoache (2008) United States Preschool children (3–5 240 (3 studies) Experimental Children associate snakes with fear
years old)
DeLoache & LoBue (2009) United States Children 7–18 months old 112 (3 studies) Experimental Infants and young children associate
snakes with fear
Developmental and learning processes

Greif et al. (2006) United States Preschool children 32 Experimental Children distinguish animals from
objects
Kidd & Kidd (1985) United States Children (age 3–13) 300 Quasi-experimental Older children display more empathy
compared to younger children
Contacts with animals
AMIOT AND BASTIAN
Serpell (1981) United Participants recruited from 120 Quasi-experimental, Childhood contact with pets associated
Kingdom public parks retrospective with pet ownership later in life
Bowd (1984) Australia Primary school children 104 Correlational, quasi- Pet ownership associated with less
(Grade 5) experimental negative attitudes toward other
animals
Pagani et al. (2007) Italy Primary, middle, and high 800 Qualitative, quasi- Pet keeping associated with more
school children experimental empathic feelings for other animals
Kidd & Kidd (1990) United States Children (aged 3–18) 300 Quasi-experimental, Pet ownership associated with
correlational enjoyment of animal-related
entertainment
Kidd et al. (1995) United States Children and their parents 308 (2 studies) Correlational, quasi- Proximity to, and touching of animals,
experimental associated with interest in wildlife
Randler et al. (2012) Germany School children (aged 10– 319 Experimental, correlational Interacting with unpopular live animals
12) associated with less disgust and fear
of these animals
Jamieson et al. (2012) United Secondary school children 61 Quasi-experimental, Education about chickens and their
Kingdom longitudinal welfare increased positive behaviors
toward poultry species
Attachment
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a) Israel Convenience sample of 878 (5 studies) Quasi-experimental, Pets can serve as attachment figures for
Israeli pet owners correlational, owners; anxious attachment to pet
experimental associated with psychological distress
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
Kurdek (2008) United States Undergraduate dog owners 923 (4 samples) Correlational Pets can serve as attachment figures for
owners
Kurdek (2009) United States Adults dog owners 975 Correlational, quasi- Pets can serve as attachment figures for
and Canada experimental owners
Johnson et al. (1992) United States Adults from households 412 Correlational Attachment to pets can be measured
with a pet
Lago et al. (1988) United States Companion Animal Project, 394 (2 samples) Correlational Attachment to pets can be measured
and Canada undergraduates
Marinelli et al. (2007) Italy Dog owners and dogs 104 Correlational, quasi- Animal attachment style to caregivers
experimental assessed using the “strange situation”
Palmer & Custance (2008) United Dog owners and dogs 38 Experimental Animal attachment style to caregivers
Kingdom assessed using the “strange situation”
Topál et al. (2005) Hungary Wolves and dogs 35 Quasi-experimental Animal attachment style to humans
assessed using the “strange situation”
Shore et al. (2006) United States Undergraduate students 322 Quasi-experimental Attachment to pet associated with more
time indoors than outdoors
Patronek et al. (1996) United States Households that 1,514 Quasi-experimental Attachment to pet associated with lower
relinquished dogs to the likelihood of relinquishing the animal
humane society and
control households
Vittersø et al. (1998) Norway Farmers 491 Correlational Attachment to livestock associated with
more negative attitudes to predators
Serpell (1996) United Dog and cat owners 84 Quasi-experimental Attachment to pet associated with
Kingdom increased satisfaction with pet
behavior
Paul & Serpell (1996) United Dog-owning families with a 56 Quasi-experimental, Child attachment to a new pet dog
Kingdom least one child 8–12 longitudinal associated with well-being
years old
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2012) Israel Adult pet owners of dogs 285 (2 studies) Experimental, correlational Pet owners with low avoidant
or cats attachment experienced reduced
blood pressure during stressful event
when pet present
PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN–ANIMAL RELATIONS
Garrity et al. (1989) United States Representative sample of 1,232 Quasi-experimental, Attachment to animals more strongly
adults (aged ⬎ 65) correlational associated with well-being than pet
ownership per se
Ory & Goldberg (1983) United States Married women (aged 65– 1,073 Quasi-experimental, Attachment to animals more strongly
75) correlational associated with well-being than pet
ownership per se
Modeling
Kidd & Kidd (1997) United States Adolescents volunteers in 63 Quasi-experimental Positive attitudes toward animals
wildlife education perceived to be influenced by adult
programs role models
Serpell (2005) United States Veterinary students 329 Quasi-experimental, Perceived parental influence on
retrospective proanimal values
Hensley et al. (2012) United States Male prisoners 180 Correlational, retrospective Witnessing animal abuse in childhood
associated with violence against
animals
(table continues)
5
Table 1 (continued) 6
Thompson & Gullone (2006) Australia School students (aged 281 Quasi-experimental, Witnessing animal abuse in childhood
12–18) retrospective associated with violence against
animals
DeGue & DiLillo (2009) United States College students 860 Quasi-experimental, Witnessing animal abuse in childhood
correlational, associated with violence against
retrospective animals
Raupp (1999) United States University students 160 Quasi-experimental, Modeling of pet abuse associated with
correlational, perceived normativity of pet abuse in
retrospective adulthood
Factors associated with work, religion, and culture

Work
P. C. Bennett & Rohlf (2007) Australia Convenience sample of 413 Correlational, quasi- Membership in leisure groups
adults experimental associated with distinct attitudes and
behaviors toward animals
Templer et al. (1981) United States Undergraduate students, 265 (4 samples) Correlational, quasi- Kennel workers reported more positive
kennel workers experimental attitudes toward pets than social work
students
Blackshaw & Blackshaw (1993) Australia Veterinary students 67 Quasi-experimental Veterinarians reported developing
desensitization strategies during
training
Paul & Podberscek (2000) England Veterinary students 319 Quasi-experimental Veterinarians reported developing
desensitization strategies during
training
Herzog et al. (1989) United States Veterinary students 24 Qualitative, retrospective Rationalization used to legitimize the
necessity of some veterinary
procedures
AMIOT AND BASTIAN
Arluke (1991) United States Employee of an animal 1 Case study, ethnographic, Use of rationalization strategies to
shelter qualitative avoid discomfort over killing animals
Arluke & Hafferty (1996) United States First-year medical students 41 Qualitative Use of rationalization strategies to
avoid discomfort over killing animals
Plous (1996a) United States Psychologists 3,982 Descriptive, quasi- General support for animal research;
experimental, qualitative support for regulation of animal
research
Plous (1996b) United States Psychology students 1,188 Descriptive, quasi- General support for animal research;
experimental support for regulation of animal
research
Vigorito (1996) United States Psychology students 175 Correlational, quasi- Exposure to animal research associated
experimental with acceptance of animal research
Broida et al. (1993) United States Undergraduate students 1,055 (7 samples) Correlational, quasi- Exposure to animal experimentation
experimental during studies (biology, psychology)
associated with opposition to animal
experimentation
Religion
Templer et al. (2006) United States University students/staff, 175 (2 studies) Correlational, quasi- More conservative religious belief
church members experimental associated with perceived
discontinuity between humans and
animals
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
Bowd & Bowd (1989) Australia Churchgoers 187 Quasi-experimental Liberal religious beliefs associated with
more positive animal attitudes
DeLeeuw et al. (2007) United States College students 82 Quasi-experimental, Conservative religious beliefs associated
correlational with lower support for animal rights
Galvin & Herzog (1992) United States Animal activists and 1714 Quasi-experimental Animal rights activism associated with
university students liberal religious beliefs
Bizumic & Duckitt (2007) New Zealand Psychology students 270 Correlational Positive association between
ethnocentrism, fundamentalism, and
anthropocentrism
Chandler & Dreger (1993) United States Undergraduate students 259 (2 studies) Correlational Positive association between personal
religiosity and anthropocentrism
Culture
Podberscek (2009) South Korea Adults 1,000 Historical, descriptive South Korean practices in keeping and
eating dogs and cats
Kellert (1993) United States, Adults and experts on 5,091 (3 samples) Quasi-experimental Attitudes toward, and interactions with,
Japan, nature and wildlife animals vary across cultures
Germany
Gray & Young (2011) Cross-cultural Representative sample; unit 60 Descriptive Dogs, birds, and cats most common
of analysis ⫽ culture pets across all cultures; animals
assigned different roles across
cultures
Herzog (2006) United States Dog registrations 48,598,233 Archival Pet preferences change over time and
are difficult to predict
Herzog et al. (2004) United States Dog registrations 42,280,840 Archival Pet preferences change over time and
are difficult to predict
Snodgrass et al. (2007) India Indigenous herbalists and 142 Quasi-experimental Protection of animals by Indigenous
nonherbalists (ethnographic) herbalists
Individual differences, ideological beliefs, and gender

Individual differences
N. Taylor & Signal (2005) Australia Undergraduate students 194 Correlational, quasi- Dispositional empathy is related to
experimental more positive attitudes toward
animals
Eckardt Erlanger & Tsytsarev (2012) United States Undergraduate students 241 Quasi-experimental, Dispositional empathy related to greater
correlational concern over animal cruelty
Furnham et al. (2003) United University students 833 Correlational Dispositional empathy associated with
Kingdom negative attitudes toward animal
experimentation
Ellingsen et al. (2010) Norway Dog owners 1,871 Quasi-experimental, Dispositional empathy related to
correlational sensitivity to animal pain
Broida et al. (1993) United States Undergraduate students 1,055 (7 samples) Correlational, quasi- Participants categorized as Intuitive-
experimental Feeling Types reported more positive
attitudes toward animal welfare
issues
Mathews & Herzog (1997) United States University students 99 Correlational, quasi- Sensitivity and imaginativeness
experimental associated with animal welfare
concerns
Heleski et al. (2006) United States Animal science and 603 Quasi-experimental, Political conservatism associated with
veterinary academics correlational, qualitative lower animal welfare concerns
(table continues)
7
McConnell et al. (2011) United States Adults, dog owners, and 370 (3 studies) Correlational, quasi- Other in the Self Scale adapted to
undergraduate students experimental, assess inclusion of pet
experimental
Thibault et al. (2006) Canada University students, men 180 (2 studies) Quasi-experimental Other in the Self Scale adapted to
assess inclusion of pet
Cavanaugh et al. (2008) United States Dog owners 77 Correlational, quasi- Proximity to one’s dog (using the Other
experimental in the Self Scale) associated with
well-being
Galvin & Herzog (1998) United States Animal activist 1,714 Quasi-experimental Animal activism associated with more
demonstrators and dispositional optimism
nonactivists university
students
Galvin & Herzog (1992) United States Undergraduates, animal 524 (2 studies) Quasi-experimental, Animal activism associated with lower
activist demonstrators correlational relativism and higher idealism
Herzog & Golden (2009) United States Various interest groups 423 Quasi-experimental, Animal activists report higher disgust
correlational sensitivity
Plous (1991) United States Animal activists versus 456 Quasi-experimental, Animal rights activists think animals
nonactivists correlational feel more pain than do non activists
Gosling et al. (2010) Various Internet sample 4,565 Quasi-experimental “Dog people” more extroverted,
agreeable, and conscientious but less
neurotic and less open to experiences
than “cat people”
Daly & Morton (2003) Canada Primary school children 137 Quasi-experimental Dog owners report higher empathy than
(Grades 4–8) cat owners
Perrine & Osbourne (1998) United States Undergraduate students 126 Quasi-experimental, Dog people more masculine,
experimental independent, and athletic than cat
retrospective people
AMIOT AND BASTIAN
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a) Israel Convenience sample of 878 (5 studies) Quasi-experimental, Cat owners more avoidant toward their
Israeli pet owners correlational, cats than dog owners toward their
experimental dogs
Geries-Johnson & Kennedy (1995) United States Psychology students 175 Experimental People perceived as more likable when
accompanied by a dog than a cat
Ideological beliefs
Costello & Hodson (2010) Canada Undergraduate students 190 (2 studies) Correlational, quasi- Social dominance orientation associated
experimental, with belief humans and animals are
experimental different
Hyers (2006) United States Adults and undergraduates 252 (2 studies) Correlational, qualitative, Social dominance orientation associated
quasi-experimental with using animals for human needs
Motyl et al. (2010) United States Undergraduate students 136 Experimental Right-wing authoritarianism associated
with viewing humans as distinct from
animals, and to react negatively to
human–animal similarity
Preylo & Arikawa (2008) United States Vegetarians versus 139 Quasi-experimental, Vegetarians can avoid meat
nonvegetarians correlational consumption out of concerns for
animals
M. W. Allen et al. (2000) New Zealand Omnivores and vegetarians 536 (2 studies) Correlational, quasi- Endorsement of social hierarchy
experimental associated with positive attitudes
toward meat eating
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
M. W. Allen & Ng (2003) Australia Representative sample 635 (4 studies) Quasi-experimental, Red meat consumption associated with
(from phone directory) correlational endorsement of social hierarchy
Gender
Herzog (2007) Various N/A N/A Review paper based on Effect sizes for gender differences vary
empirical data as a function of extremity of
behavior
Hills (1993) Australia Farmers, animal rights 160 Quasi-experimental Women reported more empathic toward
supporters, general animals than men
population
Schenk et al. (1994) United States Families 90 Correlational, quasi- Women reported more positive attitudes
experimental toward pets
Herzog et al. (1991) United States College students 366 Quasi-experimental, Women reported more concerns about
correlational animal welfare; femininity associated
with more concerns for animals
Mathews & Herzog (1997) United States University students 99 Quasi-experimental, Women reported more concerns about
correlational animal welfare
Pifer et al. (1994) Various Adults 18,482 (4 surveys) Quasi-experimental Gender differences in human–animal
relations observed cross-culturally
Heleski et al. (2006) United States Academics in animal 603 Quasi-experimental, Female veterinary students and faculty
science and veterinary correlational, qualitative reported greater concerns for animal
studies suffering and animal welfare
Galvin & Herzog (1998) United States Animal activist 1714 Quasi-experimental Women more likely to be involved in
demonstrators, university animal activism
students
Plous (1991) United States Animal activists, 456 Quasi-experimental, Women more likely to be involved in
nonactivists correlational animal activism
Patronek (1999) United States Dog owners 54 Archival Women more likely to hoard animals
Handlin et al. (2012) Sweden Dogs and their female 10 Correlational Oxytocin associated with increased
owners caregiving, affection, and empathy
Odendaal & Meintjes (2003) South Africa Dogs and humans 36 Experimental Humans and dogs showed increases in
oxytocin, dopamine, and endorphins
when interacting positively
Psychological health and well-being

Positive associations
Friedmann et al. (1980) United States Coronary patients 92 Quasi-experimental, Heart attack victims survived longer if
longitudinal they were a pet owner
Friedmann et al. (1983) United States Children (aged 9–16) 36 Experimental Presence of friendly animal reduced
blood pressure and heart rate
Friedmann & Thomas (1995) United States Clinical patients 369 Quasi-experimental, Both pet ownership and social support
& Canada longitudinal are significant predictors of survival
Friedmann et al. (2007) United States Seniors (aged 65–94) 11 Experimental Presence of a dog reduced blood
pressure during stressful event
Shiloh et al. (2003) Israel Convenience sample of 58 Experimental, quasi- Petting or stroking an animal caused
university students and experimental transient decreases in blood pressure
staff and heart rate
Vormbrock & Grossberg (1988) United States Undergraduate students 60 Experimental, quasi- Petting an animal reduced blood
experimental pressure levels
(table continues)
9
C. C. Wilson (1991) United States Undergraduate students 92 Experimental, quasi- Presence of animal reduced anxiety
experimental, during stressful event
correlational
K. Allen et al. (2001) United States Hypertensive patients with 48 Experimental Participants assigned to pet condition
a high-stress occupation showed smaller increases in blood
pressure under a stressful task
Zilcha-Mano et al. (2012) Israel Pet owners of dogs or cats 285 (2 studies) Experimental, correlational Pet owners expressed higher
aspirations, greater feelings of
capability and self-efficacy when pet
physically or cognitively present
Odendaal & Meintjes (2003) South Africa Dogs and humans 36 Experimental Humans and dogs showed increases in
oxytocin, dopamine, and endorphins
when interacting positively
Sugawara et al. (2012) Japan Adults (aged 25–65) 14 Experimental Lower stress response (functional
magnetic resonance imaging data)
when pet owners in presence of pet
DeSchriver & Riddick (1990) United States Elderly participants 27 Experimental Elderly people exposed to fish reported
(aged ⬎ 62) lower stress compared to control
Wells (2005) United University students 100 Experimental Participants exposed to videotapes of
Kingdom animals showed reduced
cardiovascular responses to stress
Headey & Grabka (2007) Australia and German and Australian 10,969 Longitudinal, quasi- Pet owners had fewer physician visits
Germany households experimental, than non-pet owners
correlational
Headey et al. (2002) Australia and German and Australian 10,757 Longitudinal, quasi- Pet owners had fewer physician visits
Germany households experimental than nonpet owners
Paul & Serpell (1996) United Dog-owning families with a 56 Quasi-experimental, Children who owned a dog were visited
Kingdom least one child 8–12 longitudinal more often by their friends, and their
AMIOT AND BASTIAN
years old families engaged in more leisure

activities at the 1-month follow-up
Serpell (1991) United New pet owners 97 Quasi-experimental, New pet owners reported reduction in
Kingdom prospective minor health problems
Raina et al. (1999) Canada Elderly (aged ⬎ 65) 1,054 Longitudinal, quasi- Amount of daily activity deteriorated
experimental, less over time for pet owners
correlational compared to nonpet owners
Siegel (1990) United States Adults (aged ⬎ 65) 1,036 Quasi-experimental, No association between stressful life
correlational, events and doctor contacts for pet
prospective owners but positive link for nonpet
owners
Negative associations
Parker et al. (2010) Australia Cardiac patients 424 Quasi-experimental, Pet owners more likely to die or suffer
longitudinal remissions a year after heart attack
Paul & Serpell (1996) United Dog-owning families with a 56 Quasi-experimental, Children who owned a dog reported an
Kingdom least one child 8–12 longitudinal increase in ill health symptoms at the
years old 12-month follow-up
Koivusilta & Ojanlatva (2006) Finland Representative sample 21,101 Quasi-experimental, Pet owners suffered more from
correlational psychological problems
Parslow et al. (2005) Australia Adults (aged 60–64) 2,551 Quasi-experimental Pet owners suffered more from
psychological problems
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
Null associations
Straatman et al. (1997) The University students 36 Experimental Presence of a dog did not buffer effects
Netherlands of stress
Gilbey et al. (2007) New Zealand Visitors to the animal 151 Longitudinal, quasi- New pet owners did not report reduced
rehoming center experimental loneliness over time
Simons et al. (2000) Australia Local community sample 2,799 Quasi-experimental, Depression scores similar for pet and
prospective nonpet owners over time
Moderators
K. Allen & Blascovich (1996) United States People with severe 48 Experimental, longitudinal People assigned to service dogs
ambulatory disabilities reported enhanced psychological,
social, and economic outcomes
Pachana et al. (2005) Australia National health insurance 12,432 Quasi-experimental, Health benefits associated with living
database (women aged longitudinal with companion animals moderated
70–75) by demographic variables
Peretti (1990) United States 64 males, 64 females (aged 128 Quasi-experimental Seventy-five percent of participants
64–82) mentioned that their dog was their
only friend
El-Alayli et al. (2006) United States Pet owners, undergraduates 207 (2 studies) Quasi-experimental, Similarity between pet and owner
correlational personality associated with well-
being
Budge et al. (1998) New Zealand Animal owners 176 Correlational Behavioral compatibility and attachment
to pets associated with well-being
Complementarity
McConnell et al. (2011) United States Adults, dog owners, and 370 (3 studies) Correlational, quasi- Social support provided by animals
undergraduates experimental, associated with increased support
experimental provided by humans
Joubert (1987) United States University students 86 Quasi-experimental Pet ownership associated with more
time spent socializing with humans
K. M. Allen et al. (1991) United States Dog owners 45 Experimental Lower physiological reactivity/better
performance during stressful task in
presence of dog versus friend
M. W. Allen et al. (2002) United States Married couples 240 Experimental Pet owners showed lower reactivity to,
and faster recovery from, stressful
tasks in presence of pet compared to

spouse
Substitution
Barker et al. (1997) N/A Sexual abuse survivors 40 Quasi-experimental, Pets as more supportive than humans
qualitative, retrospective during childhood
Barlow, Hutchinson, et al. (2012) United States University students 457 Quasi-experimental, Childhood neglect associated with
correlational, increased attachment to companion
retrospective animals
Beetz et al. (2011) Germany & Boys 7–12 years old with 31 Experimental Boys with history of deficient social
Austria learning and behavior relations benefited more from
problems presence of dog than friendly human
or a toy dog
K. Allen et al. (2001) United States Hypertensive patients with 48 Experimental Pets reduced blood pressure most
a high-stress occupation effectively for people with fewer
friends
(table continues)
11
Garrity et al. (1989) United States Representative sample of 1,232 Quasi-experimental, Attachment to pets associated with
adults (aged ⬎ 65) correlational lower loneliness among people
grieving a human and with few
human confidants
Siegel et al. (1999) United States AIDS patients 1,992 Quasi-experimental Pet owners with AIDS with few human
confidants report lower depression
than people with AIDS who do not
own pets
Raina et al. (1999) Canada Elderly (aged ⬎ 65) 1,054 Longitudinal, quasi- Pet owners experiencing stress and low
experimental, social support less likely to decline in
correlational well-being over a 1-year period
compared to nonpet owners
McConnell et al. (2011) United States Adults, dog owners and 370 (3 studies) Correlational, quasi- Thinking about one’s pet buffered
undergraduate students experimental, against social rejection to the same
experimental extent as thinking about one’s best
friend
Barlow, Cromer, et al. (2012) United States Colleague students with 83 Quasi-experimental, High attachment to pets associated with
dissociative identity correlational high scores on index of dissociation
disorder versus controls
Brown & Katcher (2001) United States Veterinary technician 113 Quasi-experimental, High attachment to pets associated with
students correlational high scores on index of dissociation
Hawkley & Cacioppo (2010) United States Adults (aged 50–68) 229 Correlational, longitudinal Satisfaction with human relationships
more important than satisfaction with
animal relationships for well-being
Duvall Antonacopoulos & Pychyl Canada Pet owners, nonpet owners 132 Correlational, quasi- Strong attachment to animals was
(2010) living alone experimental detrimental when human relations
were deficient
AMIOT AND BASTIAN
Peacock et al. (2012) Australia Adults 138 Correlational, quasi- Strong attachment to animals
experimental detrimental when human relations
were deficient
Animal-assisted therapy
Sherick (1981) United States Patient (girl, age 9) 1 Case study Classic case study on animal-assisted
therapy
Nimer & Lundahl (2007) Various N/A N/A Meta-analysis Animal-assisted therapy associated with
moderate to high effect sizes for
autistic behaviors, anxiety and
depression outcomes
Souter & Miller (2007) Various N/A N/A Meta-analysis Moderate effect size of animal-assisted
therapy on depression
Animal benefits
Odendaal & Lehmann (2000) South Africa Dogs and humans 36 Experimental Presence of humans associated with
animal well-being
Lynch & McCarthy (1969) United States Mongrel male dogs (aged 9 Experimental Stroking an animal is associated with
2–5) the animal’s lower hearth rate
Schöberl et al. (2012) Austria Dog owners and dogs 22 Correlational, quasi- Dogs who belong to owners who view
experimental, them as meaningful companions
longitudinal show lower levels of morning
cortisol
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
Marinelli et al. (2007) Italy Dog owners and dogs 104 Correlational, quasi- Dogs best cared for owned by singles
experimental with good emotional bonds to others
Relationship loss
Brackenridge et al. (2012) United States Pet owners affected by 120 Correlational, quasi- Higher commitment to pets associated
Hurricane Ike experimental with lower odds of evacuation
Heath et al. (2001) United States Local community sample 397 Quasi-experimental More households with pets than
households without pets failed to
evacuate
Gerwolls & Labott (1994) United States Adults who experienced the 49 Longitudinal, Loss of pet triggers distress and
death of a pet during the experimental, quasi- initiates grieving process
3 weeks preceding the experimental,
study correlational
Kwong & Bartholomew (2011) Canada Blind owners of assistance 25 Qualitative Loss of pet triggers distress and
dogs initiates grieving process
S. Knight & Edwards (2008) United Dog walkers 62 Qualitative For some people, grieving a pet as
Kingdom painful as grieving a human
Archer & Winchester (1994) United Pet owners 88 Correlational, quasi- Grief of a pet is more troubling among
Kingdom experimental people who live alone
Field et al. (2009) United States Pet owners 71 Quasi-experimental, Grief of a pet is more troubling among
correlational, people who are strongly attached to
retrospective their animal
Lowe et al. (2009) United States Adult females 365 Correlational, longitudinal, Pet loss predicted post disaster distress
quasi-experimental, after Hurricane Katrina
retrospective
Intergroup relations
Prejudice
Petrinovich et al. (1993) United States Undergraduate students 447 Experimental, quasi- In moral dilemmas people chose to
experimental favor humans over animals
Topolski et al. (2013) United States Convenience sample 573 Quasi-experimental, In moral dilemmas some participants
(Internet sampling, experimental, qualitative favored their pet over a human
university students)
Albert & Bulcroft (1987) United States Pet owners and nonowners 436 Quasi-experimental, People prioritized human needs over
correlational animal needs, especially under

conditions of resource scarcity
Scarlett et al. (1999) United States Pet owners 902 Descriptive, quasi- Resource scarcity associated with
experimental animal relinquishment
Limited resources
European Commission (2005, 2007) Europe Citizens of European Union 24,708 and 29,152 Descriptive People living in Scandinavian and
eastern Mediterranean countries
reported the greatest concern for
animal welfare
Heleski et al. (2006) United States Academics in animal 603 Quasi-experimental, Consumers’ unwillingness to pay higher
science and veterinary correlational, qualitative prices for meat considered major
studies obstacle to welfare of farm animals
Opotow (1993) United States Secondary school students 363 Experimental Resource conflicts led to reduced
concern for animal welfare
Brown (2002) United States Veterinary students 133 Quasi-experimental Disadvantaged social groups less
attached to animals, have fewer pets
(table continues)
13
14
Table 1 (continued)
Plous (1991) United States Animal activists versus 456 Quasi-experimental, Nearly all animal rights activists in this
nonactivists correlational study were White
Brown (2005) United States African Americans working 9 Qualitative Financial barriers and discrimination
in animal welfare-related experienced by African Americans
fields may have blocked access to animal
welfare fields
Similarity
Eddy et al. (1993) United States University students 104 Experimental, correlational Phylogenetic similarity associated with
perceived mental and cognitive
abilities
Kellert (1980) United States Random samples from 48 3,107 Correlational, quasi- Phylogenetic similarity of animals to
contiguous states and experimental, qualitative humans associated with greater
Alaska public support for the species
Hills (1995) Australia Farmers, animal rights 160 Quasi-experimental, Perceived similarities between humans
supporters, public correlational and animals associated with greater
empathy
Kiesler et al. (2006) United States, Volunteers, animal shelter 144 (3 studies) Quasi-experimental, Affection for pet associated with
Singapour workers, undergraduates experimental perceived similarity
M. W. Allen et al. (2002) Australia University students 120 Experimental Punishment of humans supported when
the animals they abused were more
similar to humans
Plous (1993a) United States College students, 253 (4 studies) Experimental, Phylogenetic similarity of animals
pedestrians correlational, qualitative relative to humans associated with
more automatic physiological
reactions to animal abuse
Westbury & Neumann (2008) Australia Undergraduate students 106 (2 studies) Experimental, correlational Phylogenetic similarity associated with
AMIOT AND BASTIAN
empathy and skin conductance in

response to animal harm
Rajecki et al. (1993) United States Undergraduate students 584 (2 studies) Experimental, quasi- More negative attitudes toward
experimental, individuals who maltreat pets versus
correlational nonpets
Anthropomorphism
Epley et al. (2008) United States Undergraduate students 176 (3 studies) Experimental, correlational Loneliness associated with perception
that pets are more human-like;
needing to predict actions of animals
increased anthropomorphism
Butterfield et al. (2012) United states Undergraduate students 99 (2 studies) Experimental Priming human–dog similarity led to
more support for animals
Terror management theory
Goldenberg et al. (2001) United States Undergraduate students 118 (2 studies) Experimental Death reminders increased disgust and
preference for distancing of humans
from animals
Beatson & Hollaran (2007) Australia University students 77 Experimental Death reminders increased negative
evaluation of animals
Beatson et al. (2009) Australia Pet owners 97 Experimental Death reminders increased distancing
from pets
(table continues)
Table 1 (continued)
Ideological factors
Vollum et al. (2004) United States Representative sample 821 Quasi-experimental Reduced beliefs in animal rights
associated with lower belief that
animal cruelty is a reprehensible
crime
Bastian, Loughnan, et al. (2012) Australia University students 265 (3 studies) Experimental Reminders of meat eating motivated
denial of mind to food animals
Bilewicz et al. (2011) Poland, Vegetarians, vegans and 522 (3 studies) Quasi-experimental Meat eaters more likely to deny human
Germany omnivores characteristics to animals
Bratanova et al. (2011) United States Amazon Mechanical Turk 80 Experimental Categorizing a novel animal as food
participants reduced concern over its welfare
S. Knight et al. (2010) United Convenience sample 474 (4 studies) Experimental, Framing low choice around animal
Kingdom correlational, quasi- research promotes its endorsement
experimental, qualitative
Shared concerns for both animals and humans
Wagstaff (1991) United Convenience sample 45 Correlational Concern for animal welfare associated
Kingdom with concern for other humans
Preylo & Arikawa (2008) United States Vegetarians versus 139 Quasi-experimental, Empathy toward animals associated
nonvegetarians correlational with empathy toward humans
N. Taylor & Signal (2005) Australia Undergraduate students 194 Correlational, quasi- Empathy toward animals associated
experimental with empathy toward humans
Signal & Taylor (2007) Australia Community members, 932 Quasi-experimental, Animal protection workers reported
animal protection correlational higher human-directed empathy and
supporters more positive attitudes toward
animals
Miura et al. (2002) Japan and University students 401 Correlational, quasi- Affectionate animal interactions in
United experimental, childhood associated with humane
Kingdom retrospective human attitudes in adulthood
Paul & Serpell (1993) United University students 385 Correlational, retrospective Affectionate relationships with animals
Kingdom during childhood associated with
positive affect for animals later in
life
Ascione (1992) United States Primary school students 813 Experimental, longitudinal Animal education program increased
human-directed empathy
Ascione & Weber (1996) United States Children (1 year follow-up 159 Experimental, longitudinal Animal education program increased
of Ascione, 1992) human-directed empathy at the 1-year
follow-up
Costello & Hodson (2010) Canada Undergraduate students 190 (2 studies) Correlational, quasi- Priming human–animal similarity
experimental, reduced prejudice against human
experimental outgroup (i.e., immigrants)
Bastian, Costello, et al. (2012) Australia and University students 197 (3 studies) Experimental Priming human–animal similarity
Canada reduced prejudice against
marginalized groups of humans
Rossbach & Wilson (1992) United States University students 79 (2 studies) Experimental Person in presence of animal received
more positive evaluation than person
without
Schneider & Harley (2006) Canada University students 85 Experimental, quasi- Therapists accompanied by a dog
experimental evaluated more positively than those
without a dog
(table continues)
15
16
Table 1 (continued)
McNicholas & Collis (2000) United Convenience sample 1,376 (2 studies) Experimental, quasi- Being accompanied by a dog associated
Kingdom experimental with increased social interaction
Guéguen & Ciccotti (2008) France Convenience sample 680 (4 studies) Experimental Being accompanied by a dog associated
with increased helping and
compliance
Hunt et al. (1992) United States Convenience sample 117 Experimental, quasi- Rabbits and turtles can encourage social
experimental interaction among humans
Bernstein et al. (2000) United States Residents attending therapy 33 Quasi-experimental Presence of animal therapist enhances
resident social interaction
Mader et al. (1989) United States Disabled children 17 Experimental Service animals associated with
increased interactions among humans
Burrows et al. (2008) Canada Parents of autistic children 10 Qualitative Service dogs perceived as improving
social recognition and status
Grandgeorge et al. (2012) France Individuals with autistic 260 (2 studies) Quasi-experimental, Autistic people reported increased
disorders (aged 6–34) correlational, adjustment after arrival of a service
longitudinal dog
Wells (2004) Ireland Pedestrians 1,800 Experimental, quasi- Dogs with likable features more likely
experimental to facilitate social interactions
Mae et al. (2004) United States Undergraduate students 259 (2 studies) Experimental, quasi- Dog owners more likely to be attributed
experimental the characteristics of their dogs
Human–animal relations reflecting
the worst of humans
Arluke et al. (1999) United States People prosecuted for 306 Archival, quasi- Animal abusers do not commonly
AMIOT AND BASTIAN
animal abuse and experimental graduate from violence against

matched controls animals to violence against humans
Schwartz et al. (2012) United States College students 58 Quasi-experimental, Violence against animals associated
retrospective with bullying
Henderson et al. (2011) United States Prisoners 180 Correlational, retrospective Animal cruelty in childhood associated
with interpersonal violence in
adulthood
Overton et al. (2012) United States Prisoners 180 Correlational, retrospective Animal cruelty in childhood associated
with interpersonal violence in
adulthood
Ascione et al. (2007) United States Female victims of violence 314 Correlational, quasi- Women whose partner was violent
and comparison group experimental, toward them were more likely to
retrospective have hurt or killed family pet
Baldry (2005) Italy Elementary and middle 532 Quasi-experimental, Victims and perpetrators of violence
school students (aged correlational, both more likely to have abused
9–12) retrospective animals
Note. N/A ⫽ not applicable.
to capture participants’ responses to liked versus feared animals in feelings for animals used in the fur and leather industry and for zoo
experimental settings, future research could investigate how these animals (Pagani, Robustelli, & Ascione, 2007). In a study con-
detection biases influence concrete everyday behaviors (LoBue et ducted among children and adolescents, those who had pets at
al., 2010). Future research could also investigate how the tendency home read more animal-related stories and reported enjoying
to pay attention to animals develops into specific and culture- animal-related movies, visits to zoos and wildlife parks, and tele-
bound rules for interacting with a variety of animals. In fact, the vision programs to a greater extent than children who did not have
fear of specific animals like snakes and spiders can be learned and pets (Kidd & Kidd, 1990).
may even generalize through conditioning and associative aversive Apart from pets, contacts with other types of animals during
learning to other animals that are not innately feared, like dogs, childhood can foster positive attitudes toward animals in general.
birds, and fish (Purkis & Lipp, 2009). This suggests that a predis- In a study conducted in a zoo, children’s proximity and visual and
position to fear animals may extend to a broader array of animal physical contact with the animals was associated with greater
species through learning processes. We now specifically turn to general interest in wildlife (Kidd, Kidd, & Zasloff, 1995; for
how these learning and developmental processes operate in theoretical discussions of the role of touch in human–animal
human–animal relations. relations, see Beck & Katcher, 1996; Wipper, 2000). Structured
animal contact interventions have also been shown to improve

attitudes toward animals. Early adolescents who interacted with
Developmental and Learning Processes
unpopular live animals (i.e., wood louse, snail, mouse) became less
Developmental and learning processes are directly involved in disgusted and fearful of these animals after interacting with them
human–animal relations (Levinson, 1978; Soares, 1985): Animals compared to those who did not have such contact (Randler, Hum-
contribute to shaping how children view the world (Melson, 2001, mel, & Prokop, 2012). In a farm animal education study where
2008), and children learn about their world through their interac- adolescents learned about chicken biology, welfare, and food
tions with animals (Myers, 1999). More symbolically, animals can labeling, both knowledge of and positive behaviors toward poultry
be used as emblems by children to define their own personal species increased immediately after the intervention, but then
strengths (Hickey, 2001). Also confirming that developmental tended to diminish three months following the event (Jamieson et
processes apply to human–animal relations, there are many studies al., 2012).1
focusing on the animate–inanimate distinction, demonstrating that
preschool children can clearly distinguish animals from objects
(e.g., Gelman, 1990; Greif, Kemler Nelson, Keil, & Gutierrez, Attachment
2006; see also Rakison & Poulin-Dubois, 2001, for a review). Attachment—which refers to the ability of an attachment figure
Other support comes from work demonstrating that preadolescents to provide a secure basis, or sense of safety when the other feels
displayed more empathy and perspective-taking toward their pets threatened or unsafe—is a fundamental concept in developmental
compared to children in early childhood (Kidd & Kidd, 1985). psychology and has also been applied to human–animal relations
(e.g., McNicholas et al., 2005; Podberscek et al., 2000). Despite
Contacts With Animals Across the Life Span the fact that humans act as caregivers and provide a secure basis
for meeting most of their pets’ needs (exercise, food, health),
Contacts with animals during childhood— especially pets—may empirical evidence reveals that companion animals can also serve
shape attitudes toward animals throughout adulthood (Serpell, as attachment figures for their owners and meet the four prereq-
1999a). Formally, pets are defined as animals we live with that uisites for an attachment bond (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994): proxim-
have no obvious function (Serpell, 1989). According to some ity seeking, safe haven, secure base, and separation distress
authors, exposure to affectionate and affiliative relationships with (Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011a; see also Kurdek,
animals (usually pets) during childhood can predispose people to 2008, 2009). In this sense, both humans and their animals can
develop more positive attitudes toward animals later in life (Paul, serve as attachment figures. A number of measures and procedures
2000; Serpell & Paul, 1994). In a study conducted among 18- to have been developed to assess these attachment processes: for
84-year-old adults, relationships developed with animals during example, the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Johnson, Gar-
childhood were perceived—at least retrospectively—to have a rity, & Stallones, 1992) and the Pet Relationship Scale (e.g., Lago,
lasting impact throughout their life span. Significant associations Kafer, Delaney, & Connell, 1988). Even the strange situation—
were also uncovered between participants’ contact with pets dur- which involves monitoring a child’s responses to separation from
ing childhood and the tendency to keep pets, usually of the same and reunion with a parent (Ainsworth, 1991)— has been applied to
species, as an adult (Serpell, 1981).
Contacts with pets may fuel a larger interest toward animals
1
over time, suggesting that concerns for pets as a particular type of While the studies provided in this section focus on how developmental
animal can generalize to cover concerns for broader species of forces shape humans’ attitudes and behaviors toward animals, it should be
noted that animals too can develop positive relations with humans as a
animals. In this sense, commentators have proposed that pets act as result of contact, suggesting that the capacity to develop a positive bond
ambassadors of other animals (Serpell, 1995, 2000; Serpell & Paul, with members of another species is not restricted to humans. For instance,
1994). Supporting this generalizing effect, pet ownership was some animals (e.g., monkeys) develop preferences for a known friend from
associated with less negative attitudes toward nonpet animals such another species (a dog) over a stranger from their own species (Mason &
Kenney, 1974). When dogs socialized with humans were given the choice
as lions, pigs, chickens, and snakes among children in middle between interacting with another dog and a human, dogs often preferred
childhood (Bowd, 1984). Among children in primary, middle, and social interaction and proximity with the human (Tuber, Sanders, Hen-
secondary school, pet keeping was also related to more empathic nessy, & Miller, 1996).
18 AMIOT AND BASTIAN
test which type of attachment animals have developed toward their hood were also more likely, as adults, to perceive such treatment
human caregivers (e.g., Marinelli, Adamelli, Normando, & Bono, as acceptable (Raupp, 1999).
2007; Palmer & Custance, 2008; Topál et al., 2005). More re-
cently, Zilcha-Mano et al. (2011a) directly applied Bowlby’s psy- Methodological Implications and Future
chological attachment taxonomy and developed the Pet Attach-
Research Directions
ment Questionnaire, which assesses attachment anxiety and
avoidance. This work represents an important advance in the field The evidence provided in this section confirms that develop-
of human–animal relations given that it grounds the notion of mental and learning processes—including contacts with animals
human–animal attachment into an established psychological throughout the life span, attachment, and modeling—are relevant
framework. to understanding human–animal relations. As seen in Table 1,
Strong attachment to one’s pet or animal also has consequences eight studies pertained to human–animal contacts, 21 studies to
for both the animal and the human–animal relationship: In adult attachment processes, and six studies to modeling. The studies
samples, greater attachment to one’s animal was associated with a reviewed also confirm that earlier experiences with animals shape
greater likelihood the animal will stay indoors than outdoors and influence the nature of human–animal relations over time and
(Shore, Riley, & Douglas, 2006), lower likelihood of relinquishing across different developmental stages. Strong evidence was ob-
the animal (Patronek, Glickman, Beck, McCabe, & Ecker, 1996), tained through the two intervention studies reported, which con-
more concerns over the animals’ survival (Vittersø, Kaltenborn, & firmed that structured contacts with animals can yield beneficial
Bjerke, 1998), and higher satisfaction regarding the animal’s be- outcomes, and for a range of animal species. The three studies that
havior (Serpell, 1996). Extent and type of attachment to animals is employ the strange situation are also strong methodologically, with
also associated with the quality of human–animal relations and a focus on the measurement of actual attachment behavior. Six
with (human) adjustment. In a longitudinal study conducted among studies reviewed in this section, however, rely on retrospective
children, higher levels of attachment to a new dog was associated reports and are therefore prone to bias (see also Table 1). Future
with increased self-confidence at the 6-month follow-up and with longitudinal studies are needed to provide more robust models of
decreases in tearfulness and weepiness at the 12-month follow-up how human–animal relations unfold over time. Such studies will
(Paul & Serpell, 1996). In terms of the specific types of attach- provide rich insight into the developmental trajectories specifically
ment, anxious attachment to one’s pet was associated with more observable in human–animal interactions (Jones, Nagin, & Roeder,
psychological distress among adult pet owners (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2001; Thorpe, Serpell, & Suomi, 2011). Another methodological
2011a), whereas those low in avoidant attachment experienced limitation involves the reliance on self-reports in the four studies
reduced blood pressure during a stressful event when their pet was reported on animal violence. These studies may have underesti-
either present or recalled to memory (Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, & mated the prevalence of violent behavior due to a reticence on the
Shaver, 2012, Study 2). In some studies, it was attachment to part of most participants to report socially undesirable behavior.
animals that predicted human well-being, while possessing a pet or One way forward may be the use of immersive virtual experiments
not was not associated with well-being (Garrity, Stallones, Marx, (Blascovitch et al., 2002), allowing for direct observation of vio-
& Johnson, 1989; Ory & Goldberg, 1983). lent behavior.
Factors Associated With Work, Religion, and Culture

Modeling
People are exposed to various social contexts in terms of work,
Through learning and modeling processes, significant others— religion, and culture, and these can shape how humans understand
including parents and teachers—model and shape our behaviors and interact with animals: These social contexts may influence
toward animals, for better or for worse (e.g., Bandura, 1971, 1989; perceptions of which animals are appropriate to keep as pets, to
Haden & Scarpa, 2005). In terms of positive modeling, adolescents eat, to use, and to love or to hate (Herzog, 2010).
who were volunteering in wildlife education programs considered
that their own positive attitudes toward animals had been influ-
enced by witnessing adults (e.g., parents, program coordinators) Work
interact positively with pets (Kidd & Kidd, 1997). A majority Involvement in different strands of work or in community and
(72%) of first-year veterinary students (Serpell, 2005) also per- social or leisure groups has been associated with distinct attitudes
ceived that during childhood, their parents had strongly influenced and behaviors toward animals (e.g., P. C. Bennett & Rohlf, 2007).
the development of their proanimal values as adults. Compared to social work students, kennel workers reported sig-
Modeling processes can also yield violent and abusive relations nificantly more positive attitudes toward pets (Templer, Salter,
with animals. Indeed, witnessing animal abuse has been associated Dickey, Baldwin, & Vebler, 1981). As another relevant occupa-
with one’s own tendency to abuse animals. Among prison inmates, tional group, veterinarians can feel caught between the interests of
the earlier in life they reported witnessing an act of animal abuse, humans and of animals, causing them great ambivalence and
the earlier they reported engaging in violence against an animal ambiguity (Swabe, 2000; Tannenbaum, 1993). Indeed, through
(Hensley, Tallichet, & Dutkiewicz, 2012). This association be- their training, veterinarians reported developing hardening, detach-
tween witnessing animal abuse and being a perpetrator of abuse ment, and desensitization strategies in order to deal with the
was replicated among adolescents (Thompson & Gullone, 2006) distress and the pain involved when treating sick animals (Black-
and college students (DeGue & DiLillo, 2009). People raised in shaw & Blackshaw, 1993; Paul & Podberscek, 2000). Theoreti-
homes in which pets were neglected or abused during their child- cally, this is consistent with distancing (dehumanization) strategies
used in the medical profession (Haque & Waytz, 2012). In an connected) rather than creationism, the more likely they were to
interview study conducted among graduating veterinary students advocate in favor of animal rights (DeLeeuw et al., 2007).
(Herzog, Vore, & New Jr, 1989), rationalization was another
commonly employed mechanism by which students reported at- Culture
tempting to deal with stressful experiences and legitimize the
necessity of some procedures (e.g., euthanasia; castration of farm Culture also contributes to shaping human–animal relations (for
animals without anesthesia). Similarly, animal shelter workers and sociocultural and historical accounts of human–animal relations,
lab animal technicians reported employing rationalization and see Manning & Serpell, 1994; Serpell, 2004). Animals can act as
blame displacement strategies to deal with the discomfort and the markers of specific ethnic and cultural identities and serve as a link
moral conflict involved in killing animals (Arluke, 1991; Arluke & to one’s original culture, thereby contributing to the transmission
Hafferty, 1996). and continuity of some cultural elements over time and across
Psychologists also endorse specific attitudes toward animals as contexts (Jerolmack, 2007). Whereas people from a diversity of
a function of their professional training (see Gallup & Suarez, cultures (Irvine, 2004) and social classes (Messent & Horsfield,
1985). In studies conducted among psychology students and prac- 1985) own and are in contact with animals, it is the specifics of our
ticing psychologists, most participants generally supported the use relationships with animals that vary across cultures (Serpell,
of animals in psychological research, and a majority of practicing 1987). Indeed, there exists significant variation in exactly how
psychologists believed that animal research is necessary for prog- people interact with animals across cultures: One culture’s pets can
ress in psychology (Plous, 1996a, 1996b). These attitudes appear be another’s pest, and cultural differences abound in terms of
to become internalized over the course of one’s academic training. which types of animals are desirable to keep as pets, which animals
Indeed, psychology majors, who are more advanced in their cur- are considered appropriate to eat or not, and which animals are
riculum and who have been more exposed to animal research, considered cute or not (Herzog, 2010; Herzog & Burghardt, 1988).
reported more positive attitudes toward animal research compared For example, stag beetles are kept as pets in Japan but not in the
with introductory psychology students, who do not have such United States, while dogs are kept as pets in the United States
exposure (Vigorito, 1996; but cf. Broida, Tingley, Kimball, & (Arluke & Sanders, 1996) but eaten in South Korean (see Podber-
Miele, 1993). This general support for research involving animals scek, 2009, for empirical evidence). In cross-cultural studies, gen-
in psychology is also bounded by concerns for animals: A majority eral attitudes toward animals were found to vary across cultures
of psychology students and practicing psychologists in the Plous (e.g., Kellert, 1993).
(1996a, 1996b) studies believed that animals used in psychological A study analyzing patterns of pet keeping in 60 cultures (Gray
& Young, 2011) revealed that dogs, birds, and cats were the most
research should be protected by adequate regulations to ensure
common pets across all cultures, followed by horses, other hoofed
their well-being, and a majority opposed experimentation that
mammals such as water buffalo, rodents, nonhuman primates, and
involves pain or death.
pigs. However, significant cross-cultural variations emerged in pet
keeping: In analyses focusing on whether pets are elevated to the
Religion level of “friends” and “family members” (as they are often in the
United States), pets were treated this way in only five of the 60
Theoretical links have been drawn between religious beliefs cultures, suggesting that elevating pets to these roles seems to be
and attitudes toward animals (Preece & Fraser, 2000). In studies the exception rather than the rule cross-culturally. Significant
that directly investigate these associations, the stronger peo- cultural differences were also observed across these cultures in the
ple’s beliefs in God or in life after death, the more likely they extent to which dogs, cats, birds, and other pets were killed, if not
were to perceive a dichotomy (rather than continuity) between eaten, as well as the frequency of physical abuse toward dogs. Pet
humans and animals. Furthermore, religious people of conser- keeping is hence not a human universal—some cultures do not
vative orientation (i.e., members of the Methodist Church) have the concept of a pet or a word for pet (H. Herzog, personal
tended to view humans and animals in more dichotomous communication, August 16, 2013). Even within the same culture,
(rather than continuous) terms than people of less conservative pet preferences have been found to change over time, often in a
religious orientation (i.e., members of the Unitarian Universal- highly random and unpredictable manner (for empirical evidence
ist Church; Templer, Connelly, Bassman, & Hart, 2006; see with dog breeds, see Herzog, 2006; Herzog, Bentley, & Hahn,
also Bowd & Bowd, 1989). Conservative Protestants and fun- 2004).
damentalists—who believe more strongly in a discontinuity
between humans and animals—also reported lower support for
Methodological Implications and Future
animal rights compared to nonreligious participants (DeLeeuw,
Galen, Aebersold, & Stanton, 2007). In contrast, animal rights
Research Directions
activists—who tend to be more sensitive to the needs of ani- Factors associated with work, religious beliefs, and cultural
mals—also tended to endorse more liberal theological beliefs contexts play an important role in shaping human–animal rela-
(Galvin & Herzog, 1992). In correlational studies, most mea- tions. Many of the studies reported in this section are correla-
sures of personal religiosity were associated positively with tional (n ⫽ 10 out of 25 studies cited, as seen in Table 1),
anthropocentrism, the ideology that humans are inherently su- making causal inferences difficult. Just so, the two studies
perior to animals and nature (Bizumic & Duckitt, 2007; Chan- focusing on the direct comparisons of occupational groups and
dler & Dreger, 1993). As well, the more people endorsed the the three studies that compare people of different religious
theory of natural evolution (i.e., and to view species as inter- orientations are not able to determine whether group member-
ship is responsible for animal attitudes (socialization effect) or attitudes toward animal welfare issues (Broida et al., 1993).
whether people join groups based on their preexisting attitudes Similarly, the sensitivity (i.e., being tender-minded rather than
toward animals (selection effect). Longitudinal studies are tough-minded) and imaginativeness subscales of the Sixteen
needed to disentangle the role of these socialization and selec- Personality Factor Inventory were associated with more oppo-
tion effects, and test how they operate over time (e.g., Gatto, sition toward animal experimentation (Mathews & Herzog,
Dambrun, Kerbrat, & De Oliveira, 2010). Experiments that 1997). Lower political conservatism (another indicator of un-
employ situational manipulations of norms relating to human– conventionality) was also associated with more positive atti-
animal relations (Smith & Louis, 2008) could also be employed tudes toward animals, higher concerns toward farm animal
in future research. Given that many of the studies presented in welfare (Heleski, Mertig, & Zanella, 2006), and lower support
this section involve self-reported measures, these experiments for vivisection (Broida et al., 1993).
could also assess participants’ concrete behaviors in response to Another individual difference that predicts the nature of our
manipulated norms and whether (and for whom) these behav- association with animals pertains to self-expansion, which is de-
iors align with the prevailing norm or not. fined as the capacity to integrate, to some extent, another individ-
In terms of culture specifically, and to go beyond a descrip- ual’s resources, perspectives, and characteristics into the self-
tion of the cross-cultural differences that exist in how humans concept (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor, &
interact with animals (as illustrated in the six studies we report), Nelson, 1991). To measure self-expansion in the realm of human–
future research could systematically examine how broad cul- animal relations, the Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale (IOS)
tural dimensions may shape human–animal relations, such as has been adapted to assess inclusion of one’s pet in the self
collectivism/individualism or independent/interdependent self- (McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011; Thibault,
construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). These Bourgeois, & Hess, 2006, Study 1). The extent to which one’s pet
established frameworks would be likely to reveal a number of is included in the self has been linked to human well-being. In a
important insights. As noted above, pets—as a specific type of study conducted among dog owners, the more these owners felt
animal—are more likely to be treated as members of one’s proximity to their dog—as assessed with the IOS—and had owned
family in the United States, a culture that is also highly indi- their dog for longer, the higher their well-being (Cavanaugh,
vidualistic. In contrast, some scholars have noted increased Leonard, & Scammon, 2008).
human–animal interdependence with a wide variety of ani- Research has investigated the personality traits and individ-
mals—tame and wild—among indigenous and collectivistic ual characteristics of animal rights activists as a specific group.
cultures (see D. H. Bennett, 1991; Snodgrass et al., 2007), For example, demonstrators at the 1996 March for Animals
suggesting that this interdependence may enlarge which types scored higher on the dispositional optimism scale than a com-
of animals are considered as important to the self. Apart from parison sample of college students (Galvin & Herzog, 1998).
these broad social factors, individual-level factors also deter- Animal rights activists reported lower relativism and higher
mine the nature of our relations with animals. We now turn to levels of idealism compared to nonactivist college students
these individual characteristics. (Galvin & Herzog, 1992). Animal activists also reported higher
scores on measures of disgust sensitivity compared to members
of groups who support the use of animals (e.g., hunting, animal
Individual Differences, Ideological Beliefs, and Gender
research defense groups) and members of groups that do not
Personality factors, ideological beliefs, and gender each play a involve animals at all (Herzog & Golden, 2009). Also attesting
role in the domain of human–animal relations and consistently to this enhanced sensitivity, activists considered that animals
predict a variety of relevant outcomes, including attitudes toward feel more pain than do nonactivists, and tended to report that all
animals, species preference, and animal-directed behavior. animals (not just those that are similar to or close to humans
like pets) possess the capacity to feel pain compared to nonac-
tivists (Plous, 1991).
Individual Differences
People also present different personality profiles according to
Generally, individual differences and beliefs that involve a their preferred type of pet (Kidd, Kelley, & Kidd, 1984; Podber-
broad, inclusive, and flexible (rather than a conventional, rigid, scek & Gosling, 2000). People who labeled themselves as a “dog
and hierarchical) focus are associated with more positive atti- person” tended to be more extroverted, more agreeable, more
tudes and behaviors toward animals. For instance, dispositional conscientious, but less neurotic and less open to experiences than
empathy is a consistent personality factor involved in human– those who labeled themselves as a “cat person” (Gosling, Carson,
animal relations. Empirically, empathic concerns have been & Potter, 2010). People who labeled themselves as a dog person
associated with more positive attitudes toward animals (N. also scored higher in terms of masculinity, independence, and
Taylor & Signal, 2005), greater concern over animal cruelty athleticism compared to cat persons (Perrine & Osbourne, 1998).
(Eckardt Erlanger & Tsytsarev, 2012; Furnham, McManus, & Children who actually owned dogs reported higher empathy than
Scott, 2003), and an enhanced capacity to recognize the pain those who owned cats (Daly & Morton, 2003). Furthermore, cat
experienced by animals (Ellingsen, Zanella, Bjerkas, & In- owners were significantly more avoidant toward their cats than
drebo, 2010). Personality variables related to creativity and dog owners toward their dogs (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2011a, Study
unconventionality are also associated with more positive atti- 1). When asked to rate the likability of different people presented
tudes toward animals. In a study comparing individuals on the in pictures, participants rated the person accompanied by a dog
basis of their scores on the Myers–Briggs Type Inventory, those more positively than the person accompanied by a cat (Geries-
categorized as Intuitive-Feeling Types reported more positive Johnson & Kennedy, 1995). These findings align with the fact that
cats are chosen as pets given their more independent and solitary Both biological and environmental/socialization factors may be
nature, whereas dogs are more interactive and dependent.2 related to these gender differences. In terms of biology, the hor-
mone oxytocin—which is more prevalent in women than in men—
Ideological Beliefs has been associated with increased caregiving, displays of affec-
tion, and empathy even toward members of other species (e.g.,
Ideological beliefs that support group hierarchy and obedience
Handlin, Nilsson, Ejdebäck, Hydbring-Sandberg, & Uvnäs-
to established authorities have been linked to attitudes toward
Moberg, 2012; Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003). In terms of environ-
animals. Correlational evidence shows that the more people en-
mental explanations, a number of authors have argued that tradi-
dorsed a social dominance orientation— defined as the belief that
tional feminine roles, associated with nurturing and caring for
social groups (of humans) should be organized hierarchically with
others, and masculine roles, associated with more utilitarian and
those in power being entitled to greater privileges (Sidanius &
less emotional responses to others, transpose to the realm of
Pratto, 1999)—the less they believed that humans and animals are
human–animal relations (Donovan & Adams, 2007; Luke, 2007).
similar (Costello & Hodson, 2010, Study 1), and the more they
Providing correlational support to this proposition, Herzog et al.
reported using animals for their own ends (e.g., clothing, cosmetic,
(1991) asked participants to respond to Bem’s Sex Role Inventory

food, medicine; Hyers, 2006). Right-wing authoritarianism (Alte-
and also measured attitudes toward animal welfare issues. They

meyer, 1998), also a hierarchy-enhancing belief that involves
found that both being female and having higher scores on the
submission to authorities and to conventional social norms, has
feminine dimension of sex role orientation were related to greater
been associated with the tendency to see humans as distinct from
concern for animal welfare issues. Conversely, the masculine
animals, and to react more negatively to suggestions that humans
dimension was related to less concern.
are similar to animals (Motyl, Hart, & Pyszczynski, 2010; see
also). Compared to vegetarians—some of whom avoid meat con-
sumption out of concerns for animals (Preylo & Arikawa, 2008)— Methodological Implications and Future
omnivores scored higher on right-wing authoritarianism (M. W. Research Directions
Allen, Wilson, Ng, & Dunne, 2000). As well, greater endorsement
Individual-level variables—namely personality and individual
of social hierarchy has been linked to more positive attitudes
differences, ideological beliefs, and gender—predict relevant atti-
toward meat eating (M. W. Allen & Ng, 2003).
tudinal and behavioral outcomes in human–animal relations. As
seen in Table 1, 27 studies pertained to personality and individual
Gender
differences and their role in human–animal relations, 12 studies to
Gender is one of the most stable factors that predict attitudes and ideological beliefs, and 11 studies to gender differences. Gener-
empathy toward animals (see Herzog, 2007, for a review). Specif- ally, personality traits and ideological beliefs that involve a broad,
ically, relative to men, women have been found to report more inclusive, and flexible orientation rather than a conventional, rigid,
empathy toward animals (Hills, 1993) and more positive attitudes and hierarchical focus are associated with more positive attitudes
toward pets (Schenk, Templer, Peters, & Schmidt, 1994), and to be toward animals. Moreover, seven studies confirm the lay belief
more concerned about protecting the welfare and rights of animals that people who prefer and/or own dogs versus cats differ in terms
(Herzog, Betchart, & Pittman, 1991; Mathews & Herzog, 1997). of their individual characteristics in a way that reflects these
These differences were uncovered in different cultures, including animals’ own characteristics and their role in human lives. While
the United States, Japan, and Europe (Pifer, Shimizu, & Pifer, women were found to differ from men in terms of their attitudes
1994). Among animal health professionals, female veterinary stu- and behaviors toward animals in the 11 studies pertaining to
dents and female faculty members of an animal science department gender differences, these gender differences are stronger for the
reported greater concerns for animal suffering and animal welfare most extreme forms of human–animal behaviors.
than their male colleagues (Heleski et al., 2006). A few emerging studies (n ⫽ 2) reported in this section em-
A systematic review of gender differences in attitudes toward ployed physiological (hormonal) measures. However, and given
animals revealed that while these differences are indeed stable, the the nature of the constructs investigated (i.e., gender, personality,
strength of these differences (i.e., in terms of their effect sizes) ideological beliefs), most of the findings relied on self-reported
varies according to the extremity of the attitudes and behaviors measures as well as correlational and/or quasi-experimental de-
involved (Herzog, 2007). While men and women are just as likely signs. The strength of the associations between personality and
to own pets, women have slightly more positive attitudes toward attitudes toward animals also tends to be small, and some person-
animals, but the effect size for this gender difference overall is ality measures employed (i.e., Myers–Briggs inventory) have low
quite small. One area where the gender differences are in the validity and reliability. Future research could employ experimental
medium to high range in terms of effect sizes is in the realm of
animal activism, with more women than men boycotting circuses, 2
animal experimentation, giving up meat for ethical reasons, and While popular wisdom suggests a resemblance between people and
their dogs in terms of characteristics and looks, empirical evidence con-
joining animal protection organizations and pressure groups (Gal- firms that people are more attracted to dogs that have the same looks as
vin & Herzog, 1998; Plous, 1991). Other significant gender dif- their own, such that women with long hair liked springer spaniels and
ferences that are in the medium to very large range include beagles better and women with short hair preferred basenjis and huskies
women’s reduced tendency to act aggressively toward animals (Coren, 1999). In a study where participants had to guess which dog and
owner formed a pair in real life based on pictures, participants matched the
(including bestiality) and to hunt, and their increased tendency to pure-bred dogs and their real owners two thirds of the time, which is
hoard animals compulsively, a behavior that tends to have dire significantly above chance level (Nakajima, Yamamoto, & Yoshimoto,
consequences for the animals (Patronek, 1999). 2009; Roy & Christenfeld, 2004).
paradigms to situationally activate the underlying orientations replications demonstrated that the simple act of petting or stroking
(e.g., current beliefs in social hierarchy; tendency to endorse an animal caused transient decreases in blood pressure and/or heart
feminine versus masculine roles) linked to specific human–animal rate (Shiloh, Sorek, & Terkel, 2003; Vormbrock & Grossberg,
relations in order to establish causal relations. 1988; C. C. Wilson, 1991).
In one of the few experimental studies looking at the association
between pet presence and human health, hypertensive stockbrokers
Psychological Health and Well-Being
were randomly assigned to a pet versus no-pet condition (K. Allen,
While human– human relations are crucial in promoting health Shykoff, & Izzo, 2001). Six months later, participants who had a
and well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), research that inves- pet showed smaller increases in blood pressure during a stressful
tigates the impact of animals on human health (and vice versa) is task than nonpet participants. Other experimental evidence re-
accumulating. Yet, the (presumed) association between the pres- vealed that when a pet is physically or cognitively present (i.e.,
ence of animals and human health is highly complex, and it hence recalled to memory), pet owners expressed higher aspirations and
merits full theoretical and empirical attention (Friedmann & Son, reported greater feelings of capability and self-efficacy in attaining
2009; see also Herzog, 2011, for a focused review). personal goals compared to when not in the presence or not
thinking about the pet (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2012).

Health Consequences Associated With Hormonal responses and the capacity of animals to alleviate
stress may underpin these beneficial effects. In support of this
the Presence of Animals
contention, both humans and dogs showed increases in oxytocin,
While there exists a general assumption that people benefit from dopamine, and endorphins when interacting positively with one
the presence of animals and of pets, when taken together, research another (e.g., when gently stroking/scratching the dog; talking
into the association between pet ownership and human health and lightly to the dog). In comparison, such increases were more
well-being has produced intriguing and contradictory evidence (for modest when reading a book (Odendaal & Meintjes, 2003). A
reviews, see Herzog, 2011; Islam & Towell, 2013; McNicholas et brain imaging experiment revealed a lower stress response when
al., 2005; Siegel, 2011; Wells, 2009). A number of reviews have pet owners were in the presence of their own pet than when the pet
concluded that overall pet ownership is associated with greater was absent (Sugawara et al., 2012). Experimental evidence also
human health (e.g., Barker & Wolen, 2008; Siegel, 1993). For revealed that elderly people exposed to fish in tanks reported lower
example, in a review of 30 studies published between 1990 and stress compared to those who were not (DeSchriver & Riddick,
2007 on the links between the presence of pets and human well- 1990; see also Wells, 2005, for the effects of videotapes).
being, Friedmann and Son (2009) found that close to two thirds of Epidemiological and longitudinal studies have both uncovered
the studies supported a positive association between the presence positive associations between the presence of pets and human
of animals and human health, while one third found that the well-being. For example, a number of large epidemiological stud-
presence of pets was either not significantly or even negatively ies show that pet owners had fewer physician visits than similar
associated with human health and well-being. patients without pets (e.g., Headey & Grabka, 2007; Headey,
Given the centrality of these research questions to the field of Grabka, Kelley, Reddy, & Tseng, 2002). In a longitudinal study
human–animal relations, we review the main studies that have conducted among children aged 8 –12, questionnaires were com-
investigated the association between human–animal relations and pleted immediately before a new dog was acquired, and at 1-, 6-,
well-being by organizing these studies according to whether the and 12-month follow-ups (Paul & Serpell, 1996). A matching
presence of pets is associated positively, negatively, or nonsignifi- control group of children who did not own a dog also completed
cantly with human well-being. A particularly large number of the questionnaires at these moments. Compared with nondog own-
studies have been conducted on this topic; hence, for these three ers, children who owned a dog were visited more often by their
specific subsections, we focus on studies that are methodologically friends, and their families engaged in more leisure activities to-
stronger (i.e., that employ experimental, longitudinal designs, or gether at the 1-month follow-up. Similarly, in a 10-month prospec-
particularly large numbers of participants). Because the role of tive study, new pet owners reported a significant reduction in
animals in human health and well-being may depend on many minor health problems during the 1st month following pet acqui-
factors—including humans’ current life conditions and life stage, sition (Serpell, 1991). This effect persisted among dog owners at a
the nature of the relationship developed with an animal, and even 10-month follow-up, and dog owners also reported improved self-
the nature of our relationships with fellow humans—we then esteem over this period. In a 1-year longitudinal study conducted
discuss the moderating factors that may explain when and why the among older adults, the number of activities engaged in daily by
presence of animals is associated with human well-being (or not). pet owners deteriorated less over time than that of nonpet owners
These specific subsections thus provide new insights into this (Raina, Waltner-Toews, Bonnett, Woodward, & Abernathy, 1999;
association. see also Siegel, 1990, for additional longitudinal evidence).
Positive associations. In their now seminal longitudinal study Negative associations. Fewer studies support a negative as-
among 92 heart attack victims, Friedmann, Katcher, Lynch, and sociation between pet presence and human health and well-being.
Thomas (1980) found that 28% of pet owners survived for at least Contrary to the seminal Friedmann et al. studies, research con-
a year compared to 6% of nonpet owners. This study spurred a lot ducted among 425 heart attack victims revealed that pet owners
of interest in the benefits of animals on human health and inspired (22%) were more likely than nonpet owners (14%) to die or suffer
a series of replications and extensions (e.g., Friedmann, Katcher, remissions within a year of suffering from their heart attack
Thomas, Lynch, & Messent, 1983; Friedmann & Thomas, 1995; (Parker et al., 2010). In the Paul and Serpell (1996) longitudinal
Friedmann, Thomas, Cook, Tsai, & Picot, 2007). For example, study, children who owned a dog reported an increase in ill health
symptoms by the 12-month follow-up. Large epidemiological lives compared to humans and how our relationships with animals
studies also revealed that pet owners suffered more from psycho- and humans interact (Harker, Collis, & McNicholas, 2000). In-
logical problems than nonpet owners (e.g., anxiety, depression, deed, humans and animals may play distinct and complementary
panic attacks; Koivusilta & Ojanlatva, 2006; Parslow, Jorm, Chris- roles in human well-being (Bonas, McNicholas, & Collis, 2000;
tensen, Rodgers, & Jacomb, 2005). Collis & McNicholas, 1998). When animals add to existing human
Null associations. A small number of studies uncovered non- social relationships, then human–animal relations are more likely
significant associations between the presence of animals and hu- to have beneficial effects on human adjustment and well-being
man well-being. This fact could be partly due to the “file drawer (McNicholas, Collis, & Morley, 1995). However, under some
effect,” where studies showing null results are less likely to be circumstances, animals may replace and substitute for human
published than studies that show significant effects (Herzog, relationships, which, although protective in the short term, can also
2011). The K. Allen et al. (2001) findings—in which the presence lead to detrimental outcomes. This section presents a novel inte-
of a dog buffered against the effects of stress—were not observed gration of empirical findings that tap into these additive and
in a study by Straatman, Hanson, Endenburg, and Mol (1997). In substituting roles of animals in humans’ lives.
a 6-month prospective study, new pet owners did not report re- When animals add to and complement human relationships.
duced loneliness over time relative to nonpet owners (Gilbey, The support received from animals and from humans can represent
McNicholas, & Collis, 2007). In a 9-year longitudinal study, distinct and even additive pathways that both promote human
depression scores were similar for pet and nonpet owners (Simons, well-being. Indeed, in a series of studies by McConnell et al.,
Simons, McCallum, & Friedlander, 2000). (2011), the social support provided by animals was associated
Bringing the findings together: Potential moderators. Di- positively with the support provided by humans (see also Joubert,
verse factors may help to explain why animals sometimes appear 1987, for positive associations between pet ownership and time
to have positive, negative, or simply null effects on human well- spent daily socializing with humans). Furthermore, the more dog
being. Accounting for these moderators provides novel and sys- owners from the general population reported greater social needs
tematic insights into when and why animals play a beneficial role fulfillment from people and also from their dogs, the less likely
in predicting human health and well-being. Life conditions and they were to report feeling depressed, stressed, and lonely, and the
stages, as well as the nature of our relations with animals, may higher their self-esteem and happiness. Importantly, each source of
represent such moderators. Indeed, life circumstances that arouse support made a unique positive contribution to predicting human
companionship needs may be ameliorated by pets, such as when well-being.
individuals have illnesses that reduce their mobility, when they Some specific characteristics of the support provided by ani-
have limited access to social support, or when living alone (for mals—mainly dogs—may be particularly beneficial to human
empirical evidence, see K. Allen & Blascovich, 1996; Pachana, well-being, such as dogs’ capacity to provide unconditional affec-
Ford, Andrew, & Dobson, 2005). In contrast, situations that in- tion, companionship, and support (see also Bonas et al., 2000). In
volve financial strains or very weak health may not be ameliorated the context of evaluative stress, animals have been argued to play
by the presence of an animal that in these cases would become a a particularly potent role in attenuating performance-related stress
burden (Ory & Goldberg, 1983; Siegel, 2011; Wells, 2009). In compared to humans (Siegel, 1993; Wells, 2009). Empirically,
terms of age, pets have been argued to play a more beneficial role women who performed a stressful task in the presence of their pet
among children and the elderly than among younger and middle- dog showed lower physiological reactivity and better performance
age adults (Enders-Slegers, 2000; cf. Wells, 2009). In fact, approx- than those who performed this task in the presence of their human
imately 75% of the elderly participants in a study conducted by friend (K. M. Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, & Kelsey, 1991). In
Peretti (1990) mentioned that their dog was their only friend. another experiment conducted among couples, those who owned a
The nature of our association with animals may also help to pet showed lower reactivity to, and faster recovery from, stressful
predict when the animals’ presence will be associated with more tasks (i.e., arithmetic task; cold pressor task) when they were in the
versus less human well-being. Empirically, the less pet owners presence of their pet (dog or cat) compared to when with their
perceived discrepancies between their own personality and their spouse (K. Allen, Blascovich, & Mendes, 2002).
pet’s personality, the more likely they were to report higher life When animals substitute for human relationships. Some
satisfaction and lower negative affect (El-Alayli, Lystad, Webb, commentators have proposed that relationships with animals are
Hollingsworth, & Ciolli, 2006). Similarly, the more pet owners likely to be of greatest benefit to the well-being of those without an
reported a high degree of behavioral compatibility between their adequate source of affection and attachment from humans (Harker
pets and themselves, the higher their attachment to their pet, and et al., 2000), or those who have experienced difficulties in their
the more likely they were to report positive overall mental health, relationships with people (Levinson, 1969). Providing some sup-
enhanced feelings of well-being, less distress, more positive effect, port for this contention, survivors of sexual abuse rated (retrospec-
less anxiety, and fewer symptoms of ill-health (Budge, Spicer, tively) their pets as more supportive than humans during childhood
Jones, & St. George, 1998). Together, these studies confirm the (Barker, Barker, Dawson, & Knisely, 1997). The more female
importance of accounting for the subjective (rather than objective) university students reported (also retrospectively) having experi-
nature of our relations with animals to better predict when animals enced childhood neglect, the greater their attachment to companion
are associated with more positive human health and well-being. animals (Barlow, Hutchinson, Newton, Grover, & Ward, 2012).
Comparing the role of animals and of humans in predicting Boys aged 7–12 with insecure/disorganized attachment—suggest-
human well-being. To fully account for when animals are as- ing they had experienced deficient social relations with human
sociated with more versus less human well-being, it is also impor- caregivers— benefited more from the presence of a dog than of a
tant to consider the relative importance that animals occupy in our friendly human or a toy dog during a stressful situation (Beetz et
al., 2011). In this experiment, stress levels were assessed via Animal-Assisted Therapy
salivary cortisol recorded before, during, and after the stressful
While interactions with domestic animals are common and
task; cortisol was significantly lower in the real dog condition than
typically informal (e.g., pet keeping), other types of contacts with
in the other two conditions. Furthermore, the more children
animals are more structured and aim specifically to be therapeutic.
stroked the dog, the less pronounced their stress reaction. Also
Animal-assisted therapy (AAT) is defined as an intervention with
supporting the notion that animals can act as substitutes for human
specific goals and objectives delivered by health professionals
relations in promoting well-being, pets have been shown to reduce
with specialized expertise in using an animal as an integral part of
the blood pressure of hypertensive stockbrokers most effectively the treatment (Delta Society, 1996; Fine, 2006). In AAT, animals
when they report having fewer human friends (K. Allen et al., are seen as playing the role of “transitional objects” (Winnicott,
2001). 1953) and secure attachment figures (Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, &
Animals can also protect against the negative effects of stressful Shaver, 2011b) that may then serve as a springboard to other, more
situations among people who have low levels of social support. Pet permanent and positive (human) relationships (McNicholas &
owners who suffered from AIDS and had few human confidants Collis, 2006; Parish-Plass, 2008).
reported lower depression than people with AIDS who do not own Whereas the first empirical studies on AAT were case studies
pets (Siegel, Angulo, Detels, Wesch, & Mullen, 1999). Attachment (e.g., Sherick, 1981), quantitative studies that investigate the ef-
to one’s pets was also associated with lower loneliness among fectiveness of AAT have grown since the 1990s. To summarize
elderly people who were grieving a human and who reported and integrate these research findings, Nimer and Lundahl (2007)
having few human confidants (Garrity et al., 1989). Among older conducted a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of AAT by includ-
adults undergoing a crisis situation and who had low social support ing 49 studies with appropriate treatment groups and sample sizes.
from humans, pet owners were less likely to decline in psycho- Dogs were the most common animal therapists, and use of dogs in
logical well-being over a 1-year period compared to nonpet owners AAT was consistently associated with moderately high effect
(Raina et al., 1999). Experimental evidence shows that thinking sizes. AAT had highly beneficial effects on autistic spectrum
about one’s pet fulfilled one’s social needs in the context of social behaviors, moderate beneficial effects on well-being outcomes
rejection (McConnell et al., 2011, Study 3) and this had the same such as anxiety and depression (see also a review by O’Haire,
benefit compared to thinking about one’s best friend. 2013, and the meta-analysis by Souter & Miller, 2007, for similar
There are limits to the substituting effect of animals when conclusions), and moderate beneficial effects on behavioral and
human relationships are deficient: In some cases, the animal’s medical outcomes (i.e., blood pressure, heart rate).
beneficial effects on well-being and adjustment may fade and even
backfire. According to some commentators, pet keeping—from a Do Animals Benefit Too?
purely evolutionary perspective (Archer, 1997)—poses a problem
especially if it occurs in the context of deficient social relation- Up to now we have reviewed how the presence of animals is
ships (Simon, 1984; cf. Serpell, 2002). Similarly, people with an associated with health and well-being among humans. However,
impaired capacity for intimacy with other human beings are at risk animals have also been observed to derive benefits from their
for lack of human social support (Beck & Katcher, 2003). In line interactions with humans (Odendaal & Lehmann, 2000). In several
with these ideas, high attachment to pets has been associated with studies, the action of stroking an animal was associated with the
animal’s lower heart rate (e.g., Lynch & McCarthy, 1969). Dogs
high scores on the dissociation index (Barlow, Cromer, Caron, &
with owners who consider them as social partners and meaningful
Freyd, 2012; Brown & Katcher, 2001)—with dissociative disor-
companions showed lower levels of morning cortisol (Schöberl et
ders often associated with an impaired capacity for intimacy with
al., 2012), suggesting that how humans perceive and integrate their
people.
dog in their life is directly associated with the dogs’ level of stress.
When directly comparing relationship satisfaction with animals
Similarly, in a study conducted among 104 dog– owner dyads
and with people (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010), satisfaction with (Marinelli et al., 2007), the dogs who were best cared for had been
one’s best friend and with one’s most important social group was neutered and belonged to owners who were single, as these owners
positively related to a variety of indicators of psychological well- possibly have more time and resources to care for them compared
being (i.e., higher self-esteem and life satisfaction; lower loneli- to people in larger family units. Dogs that had owners with more
ness, sense of isolation, and depression). However, the degree of emotional bonds to other humans also displayed higher quality of
satisfaction with companion animals was unrelated to these well- life, suggesting that these animals were not expected to substitute
being measures. In other words, having human friends predicted or overcompensate for their owner’s lack of social bonds.
increased happiness and well-being, but satisfaction with compan-
ion animals revealed no such links (see Herzog, 2013). Strong
attachment to animals may also be detrimental in cases where Relationship Loss
people have little social support. Indeed, people who reported low Attesting to the importance and depth of our relations with
levels of human social support and were highly attached to their animals and the implications of these relations for human well-
pet were more likely to report higher psychological distress. In being, people have been found to be willing to endure hardships to
contrast, for people with high levels of social support from hu- protect their animals during crises (e.g., natural disasters; Brack-
mans, this distress did not vary according to level of attachment to enridge, Zottarelli, Rider, & Carlsen-Landy, 2012; Heath, Kass,
their companion animal (Duvall Antonacopoulos & Pychyl, 2010; Beck, & Glickman, 2001) and some reported intense grief when
Peacock, Chur-Hansen, & Winefield, 2012). losing an animal (e.g., Gerwolls & Labott, 1994; Kwong & Bar-
tholomew, 2011). An interview study revealed that for some that the use of self-reported instruments to assess the association
people, grieving a pet was as painful as grieving a human (S. between pet presence and human well-being could potentially be
Knight & Edwards, 2008). A number of factors predict how problematic, especially when conducting research among pet own-
difficult this bereavement process will be: Grief of a pet was found ers who are directly asked to report how beneficial their pets are to
to be particularly pronounced and likely to elicit distress among their own health (Wells, 2009). Future research should account for
people who lived alone (Archer & Winchester, 1994) and those these limitations, aiming to access such associations using less
who are strongly attached to their animal (Field, Orsini, Gavish, & explicit paradigms.
Packman, 2009). In a longitudinal study conducted among post- Future studies on the effectiveness of AAT could also employ
hurricane survivors, pet loss significantly predicted postdisaster more rigorous methodologies and statistical techniques to directly
distress (Lowe, Rhodes, Zwiebach, & Chan, 2009); this associa- account for the mechanisms through which AAT operates (Marino,
tion held over and above the social support received from humans, 2012). Multilevel modeling techniques (e.g., Kenny, Mannetti,
predisaster distress, hurricane-related stressors, and human be- Pierro, Livi, & Kashy, 2002) that are capable of accounting for the
reavement. triadic interactions between client, therapist, and animal appear
particularly suited to this aim. Moderators also possibly come into

Methodological Implications and Future play in AAT to determine under which conditions individuals are
more likely to benefit from AAT or not. These moderators may
Research Directions
include the nature of the relation with the animal therapist, the
One of the most investigated topics in the human–animal rela- quality of the therapeutic alliance that forms between the animal
tions literature pertains to the role played by animals in human and the human patient or client (Beck & Katcher, 2003), and the
well-being. As seen in Table 1, the current review included 57 patient or client’s personality (Friedmann, Barker, & Allen, 2011).
references on this specific theme out of the 199 references cited.
The current zeitgeist tends to assume that animals have a positive
Intergroup Relations
impact on human well-being, with more empirical evidence gen-
erally confirming rather than disconfirming this positive associa- Social psychological theories of intergroup relations provide
tion (Herzog, 2011). This positive association was uncovered with insights into how humans interact with animals in terms of their
a number of indicators of health and well-being and with a variety group membership (Sherif & Sherif, 1969). If animals are viewed
of measures including self-reports and physiological measures (see as an outgroup in the same sense that members of other cultures,
Table 1 for the details of the 19 studies confirming this positive religions, or nationalities are regarded as outgroups, then psycho-
association). Different factors, however, moderate the strength and logical research on intergroup relations and “us” versus “them”
the direction of this association, including current life conditions dynamics are relevant to how people perceive and treat animals
and life stage, the nature of the relationship developed with an (Jackson, 2011; S. Knight, Nunkoosing, Vrij, & Cherryman, 2003;
animal, and the nature of our relationships with fellow humans. Plous, 1993a, 2003). From this starting point, intergroup theories
Attesting to the important role of animals in human health and (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986; D. M. Taylor & Moghaddam, 1994)
well-being, animals can play the role of therapists (as reported in can provide insights into dominance and conflict that exist be-
two meta-analyses), and loss of animal companionships often tween humans and animals. In fact, as this section demonstrates, a
results in grieving and bereavement (as evidenced in the eight variety of fundamental intergroup processes directly operate in the
studies we report on this topic). Although some studies conducted domain of human–animal relations. We first cover evidence re-
on animal grief involve retrospective biases (i.e., two such studies vealing the existence of prejudice, discrimination, and speciesism
are identified in Table 1), evidence across studies converge and directed toward animals, then review how classic intergroup dy-
attest to the significant and nontrivial consequences resulting from namics apply to human–animal relations. We conclude with evi-
the loss of an animal (Pierce, 2012). dence that reveals how we relate to animals is linked to how we
It must also be noted that the studies that focus on correlations relate to fellow humans.
among variables (n ⫽ 12 studies) and those that rely on quasi-
experimental designs to compare pet and nonpet owners (n ⫽ 18
Prejudice, Discrimination, and Speciesism
studies) do not allow for any inferences about the causal effects of
pets on human well-being: It may be that a higher (vs. lower) level Speciesism can be defined as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in
of well-being in the first place fuels further constructive and favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against
enriching (vs. substituting and maladaptive) relations with ani- those of another species” (Singer, 2009, p. 6). In his book that
mals, rather than animals leading to more (vs. less) well-being per served as a basis for the animal rights movement (Animal Liber-
se. Again, longitudinal research is needed to disentangle the di- ation), Singer proposes that to discriminate against a being solely
rection of these associations and capture how animals have bene- on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and
ficial versus detrimental effects on human health and well-being in indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of
the longer term and across different life stages. If possible, ran- race is immoral and indefensible. In this sense, speciesism in-
domized controlled trials that involve random assignment to a pet volves denying animals of their rights based on their membership
versus nonpet condition, and that include measures of the poten- into a particular species (Regan, 1997). Whereas speciesism has
tially beneficial mediating processes (e.g., hormonal, cognitive, been argued to trivialize “real” prejudice and discrimination
affective) that explain why animals come to have a beneficial against some human groups (i.e., racism and sexism; Arluke, 2003;
effect on human well-being, would provide a rigorous evaluation Plous, 1993a, 2003), many of the psychological factors that un-
of the ideas presented here. Some commentators have also noted derlie speciesism also serve to reinforce and promote prejudice
against humans, including power, privilege, dominance, control, welfare associations) were asked to explain why their group is
entitlement, and the need to reduce moral conflicts. Supporting the underrepresented in animal welfare groups and occupations, they
presence of an ingroup bias in the realm of human–animal rela- explicitly mentioned how the lack of economic resources to meet
tions, when presented with moral dilemmas that oppose human and their own needs or those of their group made it unlikely they could
animal interests, most people chose to favor humans over animals provide animals with the resources they themselves need (Brown,
(even when endangered; Petrinovich, O’Neill, & Jorgensen, 1993; 2005).
cf. Topolski, Weaver, Martin, & McCoy, 2013). In studies con-
ducted in family contexts, people systematically reported priori-
Intergroup Similarities Versus Differences
tizing humans over animals and allocated more time and resources
to humans, especially under conditions of resource scarcity (Albert The principle of group distinctiveness allows us to understand
& Bulcroft, 1987; see also Scarlett, Salman, New, & Kass, 1999, why social groups come to establish and protect their boundaries
for an application to the context of animal relinquishment). relative to one another, are motivated to legitimize their existence,
and tend to favor their ingroup over the outgroup (e.g., Tajfel &
Turner, 1986). In contrast, focusing on the similarities that exist

Limited Resources Impede Human–Animal Relations
between different social groups yields more intergroup tolerance

A classic explanation for why groups come into conflict is and greater consideration for, and empathy toward, outgroups
offered by realistic conflict theory (RCT; Sherif, 1966). This (Amiot, de la Sablonnière, Terry, & Smith, 2007). In the domain
theory proposes that intergroup hostility arises as a result of of human–animal relations, perceiving similarities between hu-
conflicting goals and competition over limited resources. This mans and animals (rather than perceiving how distinct humans and
perspective is easily applicable to human–animal relations. For animals are as social groups) implies that animals become closer to
example, the question of how humans reconcile human interests the human ingroup and more proximal targets of our concern.
when they conflict with those of endangered species (e.g., use of Phylogenetic human–animal similarities and differences.
land for human development vs. protecting the environment) il- Animals that are close phylogenetically to humans, or that are
lustrates these processes (Plous, 1993a). The opposition of envi- physically, behaviorally, or cognitively more similar to us, tend to
ronmentalists and nonenvironmentalists on whether to protect cer- evoke more positive affect than those that are dissimilar or phy-
tain species of animals to the detriment of human economic logenetically distant (e.g., Burghardt & Herzog, 1989; Kellert &
development (Opotow & Brook, 2003) is another example of these Berry, 1980). In studies testing these theoretical claims, mammals
conflicting intergroup interests. (which are closer phylogenetically to humans) were rated as pos-
In line with RCT postulates, a positive link has been observed sessing higher mental and cognitive abilities than cold-blooded
between people’s economic affluence and their attitudes and con- animals and invertebrates (which are more distant from humans
cerns for animal welfare (Paul, 2000). In a multinational survey of phylogenetically; e.g., Eddy, Gallup, & Povinelli, 1993). The more
attitudes to animals (the Eurobarometer; European Commission, individuals believed in and perceived similarities between humans
2005, 2007), people living in Scandinavian and eastern Mediter- and animals, the more likely they were to support endangered
ranean countries reported the greatest concern for animal welfare species and to favor animal rights (e.g., Kellert, 1980), and the
in farm production systems compared to people from other Euro- greater their empathy toward animals (Hills, 1995). These percep-
pean countries. These results were attributed to the stable and tions of similarity can develop even for animals who are consid-
recently improved affluence of these countries, which may provide ered phylogenetically distant from humans. For instance, develop-
more time and resources to devote to animal welfare. Supporting ing affection for a newly owned fish predicted perceived similarity
the link between resource scarcity and reduced concerns for ani- with the fish (Kiesler, Lee, & Kramer, 2006), suggesting that the
mals, faculty members of veterinary and animal science depart- human–animal boundary is (at least partly) a social construction
ments considered that economic reasons and consumers’ unwill- (Marcu, Lyons, & Hegarty, 2007).
ingness to pay higher prices for meat are major obstacles to Human–animal similarities also have direct implications for
enhancing the welfare of farm animals (Heleski et al., 2006). The how we react to the humans who mistreat animals (Burghardt &
RCT perspective was also supported in an experimental study: Herzog, 1980). In experimental studies, participants who read a
Participants reported lower (vs. higher) considerations for an insect scenario of an instance of animal abuse reacted more strongly to
(the bombardier beetle) when this insect had been presented as not this abuse by inflicting longer jail time and harsher fines to the
being useful (vs. as useful) to humans and as representing a high perpetrator the more the animals abused were similar to humans.
(vs. low) threat to human resources (Opotow, 1993). The effect was linear among the animals employed, which in-
The RCT point of view also alludes to why members of some cluded (in order from most to least similar) primates, other mam-
disadvantaged groups appear less concerned about animal welfare mals, birds, reptiles, fish, and insects (K. Allen et al., 2002).
issues: When group members are concerned about the needs and Phylogenetic similarity of animals relative to humans even af-
survival of their ingroup, they may have less time, resources, and fected automatic physiological reactions to animal abuse (Plous,
energy to invest in defending the interests of an outgroup. Indeed, 1993a, Study 3): The more participants believed that an animal
African Americans—a disadvantaged social group—reported be- victim of abuse is close to humans phylogenetically (e.g., velvet
ing less attached to animals and having fewer pets compared to monkey), the greater their skin conductance when viewing a video
White Americans (Brown, 2002). Virtually all of the participants of this abuse and the more difficult it was to watch this abuse.
in Plous’s (1991) study conducted among animal rights activists Similarly, both empathy and skin conductance responses following
were White. When African Americans working in animal-welfare- viewing videos of animals (i.e., humans, primates, companion
related fields (e.g., veterinarians, executives in nonprofit animal mammals, utilitarian mammals, chicken) in distressing situations
were higher for animals who are more similar to humans (i.e., These processes and beliefs have direct repercussions for
mammals; Westbury & Neumann, 2008; see Rajecki, Rasmussen, human–animal relations. When reminded of our own mortality and
& Craft, 1993, for evidence showing that people have more neg- creatureliness, participants reported increased disgust toward ani-
ative attitudes toward individuals who maltreat pets than nonpets). mals and a preference for increased distancing of humans from
Anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism refers to the ten- animals (Goldenberg et al., 2001), and more negative evaluations
dency to assign human characteristics—including emotions and of animals (Beatson & Halloran, 2007). This distancing effect has
cognitions—to animals and to objects (e.g., Horowitz, 2007; been shown even in the case of pets: Pet owners reminded of their
Waytz et al., 2010; see Serpell, 2002, for a historical perspective). own death reduced their positivity toward the average pet (Beat-
The accuracy of such attributions to animals is difficult to deter- son, Loughnan, & Halloran, 2009).
mine, and as such a debate remains about whether science should
seek to minimize anthropomorphic language when describing an- Ideological Factors That Promote Disengagement
imal behavior (Burghardt, 1985, 1991, 2009; Hebb, 1946). In this From Animals
context, some commentators argue that whether or not anthropo-
morphic perceptions are correct should be framed as an empirical Intergroup theories developed in social psychology also directly
question. In fact, the assumptions we have of animals, that are also account for the ideological forces that shape intergroup relations
based on our human point of view, may sometimes be correct (e.g., and that legitimize the harmful treatment of an outgroup (e.g.,
animals have emotions that are shared with humans; Bekoff, 2007) Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Tajfel, 1981). These factors have been
and sometimes not (e.g., yawning dogs may be stressed, not tired, proposed to operate also in human–animal relations. To deal with
Horowitz, 2007; and teeth bearing in monkeys is an indicator of the maltreatment of farm animals and the psychological conflict it
status, de Waal & Luttrell, 1985). causes, commentators suggest that we dissociate from those harm-
Above and beyond this debate, anthropomorphism has concrete ful attitudes and behaviors (Joy, 2005). We may also morally
psychological and behavioral antecedents and consequences for disengage from the animals themselves (Bandura, 1999). Denying
both humans and animals. In studies investigating the antecedents animals human characteristics (e.g., consciousness) and their in-
of anthropomorphism, inducing feelings of loneliness in partici- dividuality is a concrete strategy that allows us to distance our-
selves from animals prior to exploiting or harming them
pants increased the tendency to ascribe humanlike attributes to
(Burghardt, 2009; Haslam, 2006). Empirically, the more people
their pets, especially those attributes that are considered important
believed that animals have less rights than humans and reported
for creating social connection (i.e., considerateness and sympathy;
treating animals as property/objects, the less likely they were to
Epley, Akalis, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2008). In this way, anthropo-
consider animal cruelty as a crime, and the less they endorsed
morphizing animals may serve to quell a sense of disconnected-
punishment for the perpetrators of animal cruelty (Vollum,
ness and relieve feelings of loneliness (e.g., Serpell, 2002). This
Buffington-Vollum, & Longmire, 2004).
tendency to anthropomorphize animals may also be activated by
The ideological beliefs that legitimize the negative treatment of
other needs. For example, needing to predict what others—includ-
animals by humans to maintain dominance over them may have
ing animals—might do increased anthropomorphism (Epley et al.,
deep roots. Based on the Cartesian tradition, the belief that animals
2008).
do not feel pain the same way humans do and that they can hence
Anthropomorphism also has consequences for how we relate to be used for human purposes is still endorsed to some degree in
animals. According to some authors, seeing animals as human-like Western societies (Bekoff, 2007). This belief holds despite the fact
induces empathy and motivates the protection of animals (e.g., that animals are used for experimentation based on the premise
Preston & de Waal, 2002; Serpell, 1986), and may facilitate direct that they are similar to humans and that we share many of the same
interactions between humans and animals (Horowitz & Bekoff, physiological functions—including pain (Arluke, 1988; Plous,
2007). Indeed, when participants were experimentally primed to 2003).
think about an animal (dog) as more human-like, they were then Psychologically distancing oneself from the harm brought to
more likely to report wanting to adopt animals (dogs) from a animals is also achieved by denying them morally relevant qual-
shelter, support animal rights, be concerned with animal welfare, ities. For example, when people were experimentally reminded of
and even support vegetarian and vegan attitudes (Butterfield, Hill, their own meat-eating practices and the harm this brings to ani-
& Lord, 2012). mals, they tended to deny mental qualities to the animals they eat
When being similar to animals is threatening. While think- (Bastian, Loughnan, et al., 2012; see Bilewicz, Imhoff, & Drogosz,
ing of and perceiving similarities between humans and animals 2011, for evidence comparing meat and nonmeat eaters). Even
may improve intergroup relations between species, being reminded simply categorizing a novel animal as food reduced concern over
of our similarities with animals can also lead to more defensive- its welfare, independent of whether it was killed for that purpose
ness. According to terror management theory (Solomon, Green- or whether it died naturally but was used for food afterward
berg, & Pyszczynski, 1991), humans are distinct from animals in (Bratanova, Loughnan, & Bastian, 2011). The ways that animals
our awareness of death and our existential concerns. To deal with are viewed interact with our readiness to eat them, with large
this existential anxiety and also distance ourselves from our own variance across cultures regarding which animals are considered
creatureliness, we endorse prescribed cultural and social world- edible and which are not (Herzog, 2010). Indeed, when animals are
views and ideologies and adhere to human symbols of social kept as pets, they are generally considered inappropriate for human
success and virtue. We also elevate ourselves from animals by consumption (Leach, 1964; Serpell, 1987, 2009).
believing that humans (but not animals) have souls, spirits, or Language is also employed to create distance and legitimize the
some other essence that continues to exist after physical death. use of animals (for a thorough discussion, see Hyers, 2006; Leach,
1964; Mitchell, 2011; Plous, 1993b, 2003). Animals used in hunt- relationships was linked with more positive attitudes toward pets
ing and trapping are described as “crops,” “seed,” “surplus,” and and more positive behaviors toward animals generally, and impor-
“renewable resources,” and the act of killing animals is referred to tantly, with greater empathy toward humans (Paul & Serpell,
as “thinning,” “managing,” and “controlling” animals (Serpell, 1993).3 Children who took part in a 40-hr animal-focused humane
1999b). In the medical literature, animals used in experiments are education program—where they learned about companion, farm,
de-individualized and referred to with numbers rather than names and wild animals—showed elevated human-directed empathy lev-
or initials (Lederer, 1992), which may then facilitate their use els at the end of the program (Ascione, 1992) and 1 year later
(Serpell, 1999b). In contrast, assigning a name to an animal should (Ascione & Weber, 1996) compared with those in the control
encourage the recognition of their unique individual characteristics group.
and personality (Beck & Katcher, 1996; Cain, 1983; Sanders, At the intergroup level, the processes that explain these intrigu-
2003). ing links could be due to the fact that animals broaden and enlarge
Cognitive, visual, and logistical strategies are also employed to our cognitive field and who we include as ingroup versus outgroup
legitimize the use of animals for human benefits and create psy- members. Animals also confront us with beings who are different
chological distance. When framing the use of animals in medical from us and who are quite diverse in terms of physical and
research as the only possible alternative, participants endorsed the behavioral attributes and life habits (Pagani, 2011). Such diversity
use of animals for research purposes to a greater extent compared has the potential to enlarge the self, to strengthen processes of
to when other alternatives were presented (S. Knight, Bard, Vrij, & cognitive and affective decentering, and to mobilize empathetic
Brandon, 2010). Avid fans of cockfighting can come to justify and responses (Pagani, Robustelli, & Ascione, 2008). In support of
endorse cockfighting by believing that chickens involved in fights these ideas, inducing perceived similarity between humans and
do not feel pain, and that for the gamecock, the joy of battle is the animals experimentally leads to a cognitive broadening and to a
greatest joy (Herzog, 1988; Herzog & Burghardt, 1988). Visually, recategorization at a very broad and inclusive level. For example,
animals we eat in most Western countries are marketed without the participants asked to read an editorial about how animals are
body parts that are associated with life or personality— eyes, face, similar to humans reported lower prejudice against (outgroup)
tail—and that remind us of where our meat comes from (Plous, human immigrants (Costello & Hodson, 2010) and marginalized
1993a). In some cultures, however, these animal parts are readily groups of humans (Bastian, Costello, et al., 2012) in comparison to
sold and eaten, attesting to large cultural differences in factors participants who read an editorial about how humans are similar to
influencing the use of animals for food. Logistically, intensive animals. The researchers interpreted these findings as indicating
farm operations and slaughterhouses are typically located in re- that thinking of how animals are similar to humans broadens the
mote or inaccessible places (Fox, 1997), and farm animals receive cognitive field, cuts dehumanization at its core, and leads to a
less media coverage than wild animals (Singer, 2009). Through recategorization of humans and animals into a very broad super-
human hierarchies, it is executives and managers, who have no ordinate group that automatically encapsulates human outgroups
direct contact with animals, who mostly decide their fate. This (i.e., immigrants). Conversely, likening humans to animals does
hierarchy contributes to diluting and diffusing the burden of indi- not appear to lead to more inclusive attitudes toward animals.
vidual responsibility and diminishes accountability toward the Indeed, such a focus may even serve as a means of removing
animals we eat (Serpell, 1999b). human targets from consideration as part of the human community.
This is evident in genocides (e.g., Holocaust, Rwanda), where
Crossing the Intergroup Divide: Links Between How those killed are referred to by perpetrators as undesirable animals
We Treat Animals and Humans (e.g., “vermin,” “cockroaches”).
At the interpersonal level, animals can also facilitate human–
The nature of our relations with animals is also associated with human relations by acting as “social lubricants” that help to
how we relate to and treat fellow humans. Specifically, when catalyze social relationships (Collis & McNicholas, 1998; Lock-
animals are treated equally and with respect by humans, this wood, 1983; Serpell, 2000). Research has shown that how people
mind-set may reflect more constructive intergroup and interper- are perceived by others changes depending on whether or not an
sonal relations among humans. Conversely, abusive human– animal accompanies them: The mere presence of an animal with
animal relations may flow over into human– human relations. people (even in a picture) led to more positive perceptions of the
Shared concerns for both animals and humans. Empir- person compared to when no animal was present (Rossbach &
ically, increased concerns for animal welfare have been associated Wilson, 1992). Therapists accompanied by a dog were evaluated
with greater concerns for other humans (Wagstaff, 1991), and more positively than those without a dog (Schneider & Harley,
empathy toward animals correlated positively with empathy to- 2006). These perceptions can also affect human– human behaviors
ward humans (Preylo & Arikawa, 2008; N. Taylor & Signal, (Messent, 1983). Being accompanied by a dog was associated with
2005). Animal protection workers also reported higher human- increased frequency of social interactions among humans (Mc-
directed empathy and more positive attitudes toward animals com- Nicholas & Collis, 2000), and even promoted helping behaviors
pared to members of the general community (Signal & Taylor,
2007). Developmental evidence also supports the existence of
3
shared concerns for animals and for humans. For example, retro- Research investigating the differences among pet and nonpet owners in
spectively recalling affectionate interactions with animals during terms of empathy has yielded inconsistent or nonsignificant findings (Daly
& Morton, 2003; N. Taylor & Signal, 2005). This suggests that it may be
childhood was associated with more humane attitudes toward the subjective representation of pet ownership and the attitudes developed
humans in adulthood (Miura, Bradshaw, & Tanida, 2002). Among when having a pet that come into play in the development of empathy,
university students, reporting higher intensity of childhood pet rather than the objective fact of owning a pet or not.
(i.e., donating money) and higher compliance with a request in a However, it should be noted that The Link is one of the most
dating situation (i.e., providing one’s phone number; Guéguen & contentious issues in the study of human–animal interactions;
Ciccotti, 2008). indeed, the strength, direction, and even the validity of this link
While dogs—as highly social animals (Serpell, 1995)—were have been put into question (e.g., Lea, 2007). For instance, the
used in most of these studies, even rabbits and turtles encour- rates of reported animal abuse appear to be as high in populations
aged approaches by other people and stimulated conversations that have engaged in violent acts (e.g., prisoners) compared to
between children and unfamiliar adults (confederates) in a “normative” populations (e.g., high school and college students;
community park setting (Hunt, Hart, & Gomulkiewicz, 1992). Patterson-Kane & Piper, 2009). Findings from a study by Arluke,
Not only can service and assistance animals forge strong rela- Levin, Luke, and Ascione (1999) also challenged the assumption
tionships with their owners (e.g., Michalko, 1999), but their that animal abusers commonly graduate from violence against
presence has also been associated with increased interactions animals to violence against humans.
among humans (Bernstein, Friedmann, & Malaspina, 2000;
Mader, Hart, & Bergin, 1989). In interviews conducted among
parents of autistic children (Burrows, Adams, & Spiers, 2008), Methodological Implications and
service dogs were perceived not only as promoting positive Future Research Direction
social interactions, but also as improving these families’ social
Intergroup relations are fundamental to human–animal relations,
recognition and status and as increasing people’s awareness of
as shown in the 55 references cited on this particular theme (Table
autism (see also Grandgeorge et al., 2012, for how autistic
1). Speciesism and conflictual human–animal relations are fueled
individuals reported increased adjustment over time following
by competition over scarce resources and a (human) desire to
the arrival of a service dog).
maintain superiority relative to animals (i.e., six studies cited
It should be noted that the beneficial role of pets as social
provide support for this claim). Ideological beliefs legitimize the
lubricants has limits and being accompanied by certain types of
animals may backfire on human– human relations. For example, superiority of humans and justify the use of animals for human
people may attribute the characteristics of a dog’s breed to their purposes (as shown in 12 studies). In contrast, speciesism can be
owner. In empirical research, young dogs and dogs generally reduced by inducing perceptions that humans and animals are
perceived in a positive light (e.g., reputed temperament, color) similar (15 studies support this contention). Finally, how we relate
were more likely to facilitate social interactions (Wells, 2004). In to animals and the nature of our associations with them can, in
contrast, the owner of a Chihuahua was more likely to be perceived some cases, also be linked to how we relate to fellow humans (as
as nervous, and the owner of a Doberman as more aggressive evidenced in 31 studies).
(Mae, McMorris, & Hendry, 2004). These conclusions are supported in studies that employed a
Human–animal relations reflecting the worst of humans. range of methodological designs (i.e., experiments, quasi-
In contrast to these shared concerns for animals and for humans, experiments, correlational designs, interviews) and measures (e.g.,
human–animal relations can also reflect a general tendency self-reports, physiological). Future research is needed to uncover
toward harming both animals and humans. At the intergroup the common causes that explain prejudice manifested toward hu-
level, creating rigid intergroup hierarchies is likely to yield to mans and animals. On the basis of our review, some of the
less respect and lower tolerance for both animals and humans underlying factors that could produce conflictual and violent
(cf. Arluke & Sax, 1992; Sax, 2000). This idea aligns with human–animal and human– human relations may involve the belief
Allport’s (1954) contention that prejudices against a variety of in a rigid hierarchical intergroup structure, low empathy, and
social groups are associated with one another. At the interper- possessing unemotional traits (see also Ascione & Shapiro, 2009;
sonal level, engaging in acts of cruelty and violence toward McPhedran, 2009). The role of these factors in predicting preju-
animals can also be—in certain cases—associated with abusive dice and discrimination toward both human and animal groups
and violent acts toward humans. should be examined systematically.
In the anthrozoology literature, this association between vi- Given that the evidence conducted on the role of ideological
olence toward animals and violence toward other humans is factors is mostly descriptive, future longitudinal and experi-
referred to as “The Link” (e.g., Ascione & Arkow, 1999; mental studies are also needed to uncover how individuals come
Ascione & Shapiro, 2009). Empirically, violence against ani- to internalize and fully endorse (vs. reject) ideological beliefs
mals has been associated with a greater likelihood of engaging that support the use and abuse of animals in human societies
in antisocial behaviors against humans such as bullying (e.g., Amiot & Bourhis, 2003). Furthermore, while some of the
(Schwartz, Fremouw, Schenk, & Ragatz, 2012). Just so, retro- studies we review pertaining to the link between violence
spective reports of animal cruelty in childhood have been against animals and against humans provide evidence for an
associated with interpersonal violence committed against hu- association between these two targets, the exact strength and
mans in adulthood (Henderson, Hensley, & Tallichet, 2011; direction of this link remains to be further investigated. Future
Overton, Hensley, & Tallichet, 2012), and women who had research into this link should also minimize retrospective biases
been victim of intimate violence were also more likely to report that characterize many of the prior studies on this topic (i.e.,
that their partners had hurt or killed pets compared to a com- four out of the six studies we reviewed herein on this theme
parison group of women who had not experienced such violence included retrospective biases, as shown in Table 1). Because
(Ascione et al., 2007). Finally, both victims and perpetrators of some individuals engage in harmful actions toward animals in
violence involving humans were more likely to have abused childhood without necessarily and automatically becoming vi-
animals themselves (e.g., Baldry, 2005). olent and abusive adults (see Herzog, 2010), future longitudinal
research could further investigate these trajectories of violence Novelty and Contributions of the Current Review
and how they develop (or not).
By highlighting the importance of human–animal relations as a
Having demonstrated how core psychological themes apply to
distinct domain of human behavior, the current review is recog-
the domain of human–animal relations, we conclude with final
nizing the interactive role that animals can play in human life.
arguments for why we need a psychology of human–animal rela-
Traditionally, animals have been used mainly to inform our un-
tions and additional considerations for this novel domain of psy-
derstanding of basic human processes. For example, research in
chological inquiry.
the field of comparative psychology specifically aims to study the
behavior and mental processes of nonhuman animals, especially as
Toward a Recognition of Human–Animal Relations these relate to the phylogenetic history, adaptive significance, and
development of human behavior (Domjan & Purdy, 1995). The
The literature reviewed confirms that themes traditionally investi- field of personality psychology has adopted animal models to
gated within psychology are evident within the domain of human– answer questions that would be methodologically difficult or even
animal relations. Bringing attention to human–animal relations is in unfeasible to answer with studies conducted among humans, with
line with Rozin’s (2006) call for a greater recognition of the concrete an eye to understanding basic human personality processes (Gos-
domains of human lives and their impact on human behaviors and ling, 2001). Research on social cognition has focused on humans’
cognitions. In fact, animals are present in a variety of life contexts, perceptions of animals relative to humans. In this research, how-
including leisure, work, entertainment, arts, and health. As such, ever, rather than being a focal issue in itself, perceptions of
human–animal relations touch a wide number of humans (i.e., large animals are often used as a point of comparison or as a baseline
numbers of people in Western countries are carnivores, own pets, and relative to the perceptions of fellow ingroup and outgroup humans
use drugs tested on animals). These relations also involve a significant (e.g., Haslam, Kashima, Loughnan, Shi, & Suitner, 2008; Viki et
proportion of our resources and household budget (e.g., billions spent al., 2006).
on pet food and clothing and other pet items), and they occupy an While prior research supports the utility of using animals as a
important amount of our time (e.g., time taken each day for food way to increase our knowledge of basic human processes, in the
preparation and caring for pets). Human–animal relations have impli- current article, our focus is distinct and novel. We argue that apart
cations for both humans and animals: They impact on human health from using animals to inform our understanding of human pro-
and well-being, potentially shaping our relations with fellow humans, cesses, we need to directly account for and investigate the inter-
and have direct implications for the lives of a large number of actions and the interdependence that exist between humans and
animals in a diversity of life contexts. Specifically, we bring focus
animals. Yet, up to now, and despite prior calls for more attention
to the domain of human–animal relations, which captures the
(e.g., S. Knight & Herzog, 2009; Plous, 1993a), psychological re-
interactions that exist between humans and animals. In this ap-
search has barely touched upon the topic of human–animal relations.
proach, the emphasis is on reciprocal and interactive relations
One reason why paying attention to human–animal relations is
between humans and animals, a perspective that contrasts sharply
important is that it may provide important insights into human
with prior psychological research, where animals occupy a more
behavior more generally (H. Herzog, personal communication, instrumental or passive role.
May 22, 2013). By “thinking with” animals and investigating how
we think about and act toward other species, we can learn about
human nature and understand human societies in new ways (Lévi- Accounting for Animal Species and Types
Strauss, 1966). The treatment of animals in a society has also been Applying fundamental psychological principles to the domain of
argued to be indicative of how this society treats its humans human–animal relations also allows us to integrate and organize prior
(Gandhi, 1931). findings in a systematic manner, including the findings observed for
Beyond these generalized features, human relationships with ani- how humans relate to different animal species and types. In fact, and
mals also have a number of unique features (Kidd & Kidd, 1987) that as the current review demonstrates, the literature covers our relations
research needs to capture and account for directly. For example, some with a wide diversity of animals, from dogs and cats to insects and
intergroup principles—which assume that different groups compete snakes. Yet, few articles have proposed a systematic and integrative
for status— do not seem to apply squarely to human–animal relations, framework to organize the findings of the human–animal relations
which are more hierarchically stable. The extent to which we extend literature by accounting directly for animal species and types (for a
our care and concern to animals also appears to be more context notable exception, see Serpell, 2004, who synthesized the work of
dependent, flexible, and motivated than our perception of these same Arluke, 1988, Kellert, 1980; Kellert & Berry, 1980, and Hills, 1993,
qualities in other humans (Epley et al., 2007). Different areas of the 1995).4 Distinguishing among species and types of animals is impor-
brain have been found to be activated when viewing humans suffer tant because how we categorize and evaluate animals has concrete
than when viewing animals suffer (Franklin et al., 2013). Further-
more, the interactions that take place among humans and animals 4
Generally, the anthrozoology literature has revealed that we differen-
seem to have unique and synergetic effects (for examples in the realm tiate among different animal species, breeds, and types in terms of their
of human– dog interactions specifically, see Hare et al., 2002; Horow- mental abilities (e.g., intelligence), as well as their beauty, utility, eco-
itz, 2009; Joly-Mascheroni, Senju, & Shepherd, 2008; Kubinyi, nomic value, familiarity, status, and potential harmfulness to us (e.g.,
Burghardt & Herzog, 1980; Driscoll, 1995; Jamieson et al., 2012; Johans-
Miklósi, Topál, & Csányi, 2003; Schwab & Huber, 2006). These
son, Karlsson, Pedersen, & Flykt, 2012; Kellert, 1980; Kellert & Berry,
examples highlight the uniqueness of human–animal relations and the 1980; S. Knight et al., 2003; S. Knight, Vrij, et al., 2009; Plous, 1993a;
need to consider this domain of human behavior in its own right. Reading, Miller, & Kellert, 1999; Serpell, 1986, 2004).
repercussions for how we treat them and for the quality of our allows us to organize the human–animal relations literature in a
relations with them. Our human categorization of animals may also systematic and integrative manner.
allow us to compartmentalize species and types of animals in distinct
groups, avoid feeling conflicted over the highly differential treatment
Cross-Cultural Differences in
received by different species and types of animals, and provide a
Human–Animal Relations
rationale for why we allocate moral obligations to some animals but
not others (Herzog, 1988; Serpell, 2009). As is evident in Table 1, much of the evidence reviewed is from
When synthesizing the literature, two dimensions appear Western contexts. A greater focus on cultural differences is im-
particularly useful in predicting with which species and types of perative to truly advance a psychology of human–animal relations.
animals humans are likely to develop positive and harmonious The little cross-culture evidence that we reviewed here suggests
relations, and with which species and types of animals we are that human–animal relations are likely to be very sensitive to
likely to have more conflictual and abusive relations (see also cultural contexts. Indeed, broad cultural dimensions (individualism
Serpell, 2004). Building on the social perception literature and collectivism) and other normative factors would be expected
(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008), the first dimension refers to the to differ substantially across contexts.
extent to which animals are perceived by humans as being high It is important to note, however, that cross-cultural differ-
versus low in competence, and more specifically, how skilled ences may be important for shaping the precise direction and
they are, and how instrumental and beneficial they are to nature of human–animal relations, but the broad themes of
humans’ interests. The second dimension refers to how animals psychological inquiry may still apply across these cultural
are perceived by humans as being high versus low on warmth: contexts with some consistency. For example, it is likely that
how lovable animals are versus how much they elicit negative the general psychological effects of contact, attachment, and
emotions such as fear and disgust. Supporting this bidimen- modeling would be broadly consistent across cultures, just as
sional model, Kwan and Cuddy (2008) found that people tend to they are assumed to be in the case of human– human relations.
view animals as falling into four categories: (a) pets, who are Nonetheless, normative factors and how animals are perceived
evaluated positively and as being helpful to people (high com- within those contexts would likely be strong moderators of the
petence and high warmth); (b) pests, who are unfriendly and observed relationships. One might also expect that a tendency
lack ability (low competence and low warmth); (c) predators, to be drawn to animals, and also to fear some, would be broadly
who eat and harm humans (high competence and low warmth); evident across cultural contexts, as would the outcomes of
and (d) prey animals, who are viewed positively but lack ability viewing animals as phylogenetically similar to humans, re-
(low competence and high warmth). source scarcity, and intergroup dynamics. Critically, however,
How humans evaluate animals along these two dimensions has the tendency to liken animals to humans would be likely to vary
concrete implications for how we relate to and treat them. In terms substantially across cultural contexts, providing a powerful
of competence, the more animals are perceived to possess cogni- moderator for these effects. In terms of well-being, whether
tive capacities and the higher up they are on the phylogenetic scale, animals will be associated with more versus less human well-
the more we tend to attribute them moral standing, rights, and being may be highly sensitive to cross-cultural contexts, and
power (Aronson, 1984). In terms of warmth, our attitudes and perhaps aligned with other factors such as the prevalence of pet
perceptions tend to be more positive toward animals we perceive ownership in a particular culture and the role assigned to a
as friendly, attractive, and with whom we identify, such as pets specific animal in that culture (Gray & Young, 2011).
(Hills, 1993, 1995; Kellert, 1980; A. J. Knight, 2008). Interest-
ingly, while pets are generally evaluated as higher in competence
The Future of Human–Animal Relations
and warmth relative to other animals (Bulliet, 2005; Herzog, 2010;
Plous, 1993a), even within the social category of pets, a hierarchy Moving forward, we believe that the recognition of human–
exists. For example, lower status mixed-breed dogs in animal animal relations as an area of critical inquiry for psychology is
shelters have been found to be almost twice as likely to be important for two reasons. First, it captures an increasing tendency
euthanized compared to the higher status pure-bred dogs (Posage, to incorporate animals into our social and moral worlds and to
Bartlett, & Thomas, 1998). broaden our concerns beyond the human species (e.g., Pinker,
In the realm of experimentation with animals, people are more 2011; Singer, 1981). To this extent, animals are increasingly
supportive of using small-brained animals such as mice and rats, relevant to psychological models of well-being, development, and
but less supportive of using animals classified as pets (e.g., cats moral reasoning, to name a few. Beyond providing useful bench-
and dogs) and animals believed to have “higher” mental abilities, marks for understanding the emergence of human capacities (such
who are seen as more competent (e.g., chimpanzees and apes; as in the field of comparative psychology), our relationships with
Herzog & Galvin, 1997; cf. S. Knight, Vrij, Bard, & Brandon, animals will be increasingly important for gaining direct insights
2009). Extreme animal rights activists also tend to target research- into human development, health, and decision making. Second,
ers who experiment on animals who have higher cognitive abilities one of the most urgent needs for a psychology of human–animal
(i.e., primates, pets) than those who study chickens, lizards, mice, relations is to better understand how competing interests are suc-
and rats (Morrison, 2009; cf. S. Knight, Vrij, et al., 2009). This cessfully negotiated. As we note, resource scarcity is likely to
specific application not only reveals how humans’ subjective per- place pressure not only on human– human relations but also on
ceptions of different types and species of animals have a direct human–animal relations. In fact, it is human–animal relations that
impact on our relations with them, but also represents one example will be most sensitive to resource bottlenecks, given that animals
where the application of fundamental social perception principles are generally relegated lower status and less worth than humans.
Understanding decision making around pressure points, such as sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 597– 608. http://dx.doi.org/
those evident in agriculture, hunting, and environmentalism, will 10.1177/0146167203029005005
benefit from a psychology of human–animal relations. So too will Amiot, C. E., de la Sablonnière, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007).
an understanding of how we deal with the environmental impacts Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-
of invasive species—the human species being one of the most developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11,
364 –388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304091
critical.
Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human
Behavior, 18, 237–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0162-3095(99)
Conclusion 80001-4
Archer, J., & Monton, S. (2011). Preference for infant facial features in pet
The current review aimed to bring psychologists’ attention to dogs and cats. Ethology, 117, 217–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-
the growing and consequential topic of human–animal relations. 0310.2010.01863.x
We have aimed to recognize the central place that animals Archer, J., & Winchester, G. (1994). Bereavement following death of a pet.
occupy in human societies, to illustrate how human–animal British Journal of Psychology, 85, 259 –271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
relations have important consequences for humans and animals j.2044-8295.1994.tb02522.x

alike, and to highlight that as a scientific discipline, psychology Arluke, A. B. (1988). Sacrificial symbolism in animal experimentation:
brings a systematic and theoretically based approach to this Object or pet? Anthrozoös, 2, 98 –117. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
topic. More broadly, this review contributes to a growing and 089279389787058091
broader call for an acknowledgment of the role of animals in Arluke, A. (1991). Coping with euthanasia: A case study of shelter culture.
human lives and for a broadening of psychology beyond the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 198, 1176 –
1180.
human ingroup.
Arluke, A. B. (2003). Ethnozoology and the future of sociology. Interna-
tional Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23, 26 – 45. http://dx.doi
References .org/10.1108/01443330310790246
Arluke, A., & Hafferty, F. (1996). From apprehension to fascination with
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds
dog lab: The use of absolutions by medical students. Journal of Con-
across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris
temporary Ethnography, 25, 201–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
(Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33–51). London, England:
089124196025002002
Taylor & Francis.
Arluke, A. B., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione, F. (1999). The relationship
Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1987). Pets and urban life. Anthrozoös, 1, 9 –25.
of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behavior.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279388787058740
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 963–975. http://dx.doi.org/
Allen, K., & Blascovich, J. (1996). The value of service dogs for people
10.1177/088626099014009004
with severe ambulatory disabilities. A randomized controlled trial. Jour-
Arluke, A. B., & Sanders, C. R. (1996). Regarding animals. Philadelphia,
nal of the American Medical Association, 275, 1001–1006. http://dx.doi
PA: Temple University Press.
.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03530370039028
Allen, K., Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W. B. (2002). Cardiovascular reac- Arluke, A. B., & Sax, B. (1992). Understanding Nazi animal protection and
tivity and the presence of pets, friends, and spouses: The truth about cats the Holocaust. Anthrozoös, 5, 6 –31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
and dogs. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 727–739. 089279392787011638
Allen, K. M., Blascovich, J., Tomaka, J., & Kelsey, R. M. (1991). Presence Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self
of human friends and pet dogs as moderators of autonomic responses to Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality
stress in women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, and Social Psychology, 63, 596 – 612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
582–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.582 3514.63.4.596
Allen, K., Shykoff, B. E., & Izzo, J. L., Jr. (2001). Pet ownership, but not Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships
ace inhibitor therapy, blunts home blood pressure responses to mental as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
stress. Hypertension, 38, 815– 820. chology, 60, 241–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241
Allen, M. W., Hunstone, M., Waerstad, J., Foy, E., Hobbins, T., Wikner, Aronson, L. R. (1984). Levels of integration and organization: A reeval-
B., & Wirrel, J. (2002). Human-to-animal similarity and participant uation of the evolutionary scale. In G. Greenberg & E. Tobach (Eds.),
mood influence punishment recommendations for animal abusers. Soci- Behavioral evolution and integrative levels (pp. 57– 81). London, Eng-
ety & Animals, 10, 267–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ land: Erlbaum.
156853002320770074 Ascione, F. R. (1992). Enhancing children’s attitudes about the humane
Allen, M. W., & Ng, S. H. (2003). Human values, utilitarian benefits and treatment of animals: Generalization to human-directed empathy. An-
identification: The case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychol- throzoös, 5, 176 –191. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011421
ogy, 33, 37–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.128 Ascione, F. R., & Arkow, F. (Eds.). (1999). Child abuse, domestic vio-
Allen, M. W., Wilson, M., Ng, S. H., & Dunne, M. (2000). Values and lence, and animal abuse: Linking the circles of compassion for preven-
beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, tion and intervention. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
405– 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600481 Ascione, F. R., & Shapiro, K. J. (2009). People and animals, kindness and
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison- cruelty: Research directions and policy implications. Journal of Social
Wesley. Issues, 65, 569 –587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009
Altemeyer, B. (1998). A 20-item version of the RWA scale. Unpublished .01614.x
manuscript, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Ascione, F. R., & Weber, C. V. (1996). Children’s attitudes about the
American Pet Products Association. (2013). APPA National Pet Owners humane treatment of animals and empathy: One-year follow up of a
Survey 2013/2014. Retrieved from http://www.americanpetproducts.org/ school-based intervention. Anthrozoös, 9, 188 –195. http://dx.doi.org/
pubs_survey.asp 10.2752/089279396787001455
Amiot, C. E., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2003). Discrimination and the positive– Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M.,
negative asymmetry effect: Ideological and normative processes. Per- & Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal
abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by Bekoff, M. (2007). The emotional lives of animals: A leading scientist
nonabused women. Violence Against Women, 13, 354 –373. http://dx.doi explores animal joy, sorrow, and empathy—and why they matter. No-
.org/10.1177/1077801207299201 vato, CA: New World Library.
Baldry, A. C. (2005). Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and Bennett, D. H. (1991). Animal rights and Aboriginal concepts. In E.
indirectly victimized at school and at home. Criminal Behaviour and Toback (Series Ed.) & D. B. Croft (Vol. Ed.), Advances in comparative
Mental Health, 15, 97–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.42 psychology: Vole 2. Australian people and animals in today’s dream-
Bandura, A. (1971). Vicarious- and self-reinforcement processes. In R. time: The role of comparative psychology in the management of natural
Glaser (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement (pp. 228 –278). New York, resources (pp. 53– 69). New York, NY: Praeger.
NY: Academic Press. Bennett, P. C., & Rohlf, V. I. (2007). Owner– companion dog interactions:
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Relationships between demographic variables, potentially problematic
Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9 behaviours, training engagement and shared activities. Applied Animal
.1175 Behaviour Science, 102, 65– 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhuman- .2006.03.009
ities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209. http://dx Bernstein, P. L., Friedmann, E., & Malaspina, A. (2000). Animal-assisted
.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3 therapy enhances resident social interaction and initiation in long-term

Barker, S. B., Barker, R. T., Dawson, K. S., & Knisely, J. S. (1997). The care facilities. Anthrozoös, 13, 213–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
use of the family life space diagram in establishing inter-connectedness: 089279300786999743
A preliminary study of sexual abuse survivors, their significant others, Bilewicz, M., Imhoff, R., & Drogosz, M. (2011). The humanity of what we
and pets. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omni-
& Practice, 53, 435– 450. vores. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 201–209. http://dx
Barker, S. B., & Wolen, A. R. (2008). The benefits of human– companion .doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.766
animal interaction: A review. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Varieties of group self-centeredness and
35, 487– 495. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.4.487 dislike of the specific other. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29,
Barlow, M. R., Cromer, L. D., Caron, H. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2012). 195–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973530701332252
Comparison of normative and diagnosed dissociation on attachment to Blackshaw, J. K., & Blackshaw, A. W. (1993). Student perceptions of
companion animals and stuffed animals. Psychological Trauma: Theory,
attitudes to the human–animal bond. Anthrozoös, 6, 190 –198. http://dx
Research, Practice, and Policy, 4, 501–506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
.doi.org/10.2752/089279393787002187
a0028134
Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A. C., Swinth, K. R., Hoyt, C. L., &
Barlow, M. R., Hutchinson, C. A., Newton, K., Grover, T., & Ward, L.
Bailenson, J. N. (2002). Immersive virtual environment technology as a
(2012). Childhood neglect, attachment to companion animals, and
methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13,
stuffed animals as attachment objects in women and men. Anthrozoös,
103–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1302_01
25, 111–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13240472427159
Bonas, S., McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2000). Pets in the network of
Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, G. (2012). When
family relationships: An empirical study. In A. L. Podberscek, E. S.
closing the human–animal divide expands moral concern: The impor-
Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring the
tance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3,
relationships between people and pets (pp. 209 –236). Cambridge, Eng-
421– 429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611425106
land: Cambridge University Press.
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012). Don’t
Bowd, A. D. (1984). Fears and understanding of animals in middle child-
mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption.
hood. Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 247–256. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0146167211424291 Development, 145, 143–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1984
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for .10532260
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho- Bowd, A. D., & Bowd, A. C. (1989). Attitudes toward the treatment of
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117 animals: A study of Christian groups in Australia. Anthrozoös, 3, 20 –24.
.3.497 http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279390787057784
Beatson, R. M., & Halloran, M. J. (2007). Humans rule! The effects of Brackenridge, S., Zottarelli, L. K., Rider, E., & Carlsen-Landy, B. (2012).
creatureliness reminders, mortality salience and self-esteem on attitudes Dimensions of the human–animal bond and evacuation decisions among
towards animals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 619 – 632. pet owners during Hurricane Ike. Anthrozoös, 25, 229 –238. http://dx.doi
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466606X147753 .org/10.2752/175303712X13316289505503
Beatson, R. M., Loughnan, S., & Halloran, M. (2009). Attitudes toward Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Paul, E. S. (2010). Could empathy for animals have
animals: The effect of priming thoughts of human–animal similarities been an adaptation in the evolution of Homo sapiens? Animal Welfare,
and mortality salience on the evaluation of companion animals. Society 19(Suppl.), 107–112.
& Animals, 17, 72– 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853009X393774 Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of catego-
Beck, A. M., & Katcher, A. H. (1996). Between pets and people: The rization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57,
importance of animal companionship. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Uni- 193–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.020
versity Press. Broida, J., Tingley, L., Kimball, R., & Miele, J. (1993). Personality
Beck, A. M., & Katcher, A. H. (2003). Future directions in human–animal differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society & Animals, 1,
bond research. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 79 –93. http://dx.doi 129 –144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853093X00037
.org/10.1177/0002764203255214 Brown, S.-E. (2002). Ethnic variations in pet attachment among students at
Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D. C., Hediger, K., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., & an American school of veterinary medicine. Society & Animals, 10,
Julius, H. (2011). The effect of a real dog, toy dog and friendly person 249 –266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853002320770065
on insecurely attached children during a stressful task: An exploratory Brown, S.-E. (2005). The under-representation of African Americans in
study. Anthrozoös, 24, 349 –368. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/ animal welfare fields in the United States. Anthrozoös, 18, 98 –121.
175303711X13159027359746 http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279305785594225
Brown, S.-E., & Katcher, A. H. (2001). Pet attachment and dissociation. ization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 3–22. http://dx
Society & Animals, 9, 25– 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853 .doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347725
001300108973 Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence
Bryant, C. (1979). The zoological connection: Animal-related human be- as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content
havior. Social Forces, 58, 399 – 421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.2 model and the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experi-
.399 mental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 61–149). San Diego, CA:
Budge, C. R., Spicer, J., Jones, B., & St. George, R. (1998). Health Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
correlates of compatibility and attachment in human-companion animal Daly, B., & Morton, L. L. (2003). Children with pets do not show higher
relationships. Society & Animals, 6, 219 –234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ empathy: A challenge to current views. Anthrozoös, 16, 298 –314. http://
156853098X00168 dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279303786992026
Bulliet, R. W. (2005). Hunters, herders, and hamburgers: The past and DeGue, S., & DiLillo, D. (2009). Is animal cruelty a “red flag” for family
future of human–animal relationships. New York, NY: Columbia Uni- violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners,
versity Press. and pets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1036 –1056. http://dx
Burghardt, G. M. (1985). Animal awareness. Current perceptions and .doi.org/10.1177/0886260508319362
historical perspective. American Psychologist, 40, 905–919. http://dx DeLeeuw, J. L., Galen, L. W., Aebersold, C., & Stanton, V. (2007).
.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.8.905 Support for animal rights as a function of belief in evolution, religious

Burghardt, G. M. (1991). Cognitive ethology and critical anthropomor- fundamentalism, and religious denomination. Society & Animals, 15,
phism: A snake with two heads and hognose snakes that play dead. In 353–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853007X235528
C. A. Ristau (Ed.), Cognitive ethology: The minds of other animals: DeLoache, J. S., & LoBue, V. (2009). The narrow fellow in the grass:
Essays in honor of Donald R. Griffin (pp. 53–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- Human infants associate snakes and fear. Developmental Science, 12,
baum. 201–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00753.x
Burghardt, G. M. (2009). Ethics and animal consciousness: How rubber the DeLoache, J. S., & Pickard, M. B. (2010). Of chimps and children: Use of
ethical ruler? Journal of Social Issues, 65, 499 –521. http://dx.doi.org/ spatial symbols by two species. In F. L. Dolins & R. W. Mitchell (Eds.),
10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01611.x Spatial cognition, spatial perception: Mapping the self and space (pp.
Burghardt, G. M., & Herzog, H. A. (1989). Animals, evolution and ethics. 486 –501). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
In R. J. Hoage (Ed.), Perceptions of animals in American culture (pp. Delta Society. (1996). Standards of practice for animal-assisted activities
129 –151). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. and animal-assisted therapy. Renton, WA: Author.
Burghardt, G. M., & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1980). Beyond conspecifics: Is DeSchriver, M. M., & Riddick, C. C. (1990). Effects of watching aquari-
Brer Rabbit our brother? Bioscience, 30, 763–768. http://dx.doi.org/ ums on elders’ stress. Anthrozoös, 4, 44 – 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
10.2307/1308337 089279391787057396
Burrows, K. E., Adams, C. L., & Spiers, J. (2008). Sentinels of safety: de Waal, F. B. M. (2009). The age of empathy: Nature’s lessons for a
Service dogs ensure safety and enhance freedom and well-being for kinder society. Toronto, Canada: Emblem.
families with autistic children. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1642– de Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1985). The formal hierarchy of rhesus
1649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732308327088 macaques: An investigation of the bared-teeth display. American Jour-
Butterfield, M. E., Hill, S. E., & Lord, C. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry nal of Primatology, 9, 73– 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajp.1350090202
friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Exper- Domjan, M., & Purdy, J. E. (1995). Animal research in psychology. More
imental Social Psychology, 48, 957–960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp than meets the eye of the general psychology student. American Psy-
.2012.02.010 chologist, 50, 496 –503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.7.496
Cain, A. O. (1983). A study of pets in the family system. In A. H. Katcher Donovan, J., & Adams, C. J. (2007). The feminist care tradition on animal
& A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with companion ethics. New York, NY: Colombia University Press.
animals (pp. 72– 81). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Driscoll, J. W. (1995). Attitudes toward animals: Species ratings. Society &
Carlisle-Frank, P., & Frank, J. M. (2006). Owners, guardians, and owner- Animals, 3, 139 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853095X00125
guardians: Differing relationships with pets. Anthrozoös, 19, 225–242. Duvall Antonacopoulos, N. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2010). An examination of
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415574 the potential role of pet ownership, human social support and pet
Cavanaugh, L. A., Leonard, H. A., & Scammon, D. L. (2008). A tail of two attachment in the psychological health of individuals living alone. An-
personalities: How canine companions shape relationships and well- throzoös, 23, 37–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303710X
being. Journal of Business Research, 61, 469 – 479. http://dx.doi.org/ 12627079939143
10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.024 Eckardt Erlanger, A. C., & Tsytsarev, S. V. (2012). The relationship
Chandler, E. W., & Dreger, R. M. (1993). Anthropocentrism: Construct between empathy and personality in undergraduate students attitudes
validity and measurement. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, toward nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 20, 21–38. http://dx.doi
8, 169 –188. .org/10.1163/156853012X614341
Cohen, S. P. (2002). Can pets function as family members? Western Eddy, T. J., Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Povinelli, D. J. (1993). Attribution of
Journal of Nursing Research, 24, 621– 638. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspec-
019394502320555386 tive. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 87–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
Collis, G. M., & McNicholas, J. (1998). A theoretical basis for health .1540-4560.1993.tb00910.x
benefits of pet ownership: Attachment versus psychological support. In El-Alayli, A., Lystad, A. L., Webb, S. R., Hollingsworth, S. L., & Ciolli,
C. C. Wilson & D. C. Turner (Eds.), Companion animals in human J. L. (2006). Reigning cats and dogs: A pet-enhancement bias and its link
health (pp. 105–122). London, England: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/ to pet attachment, pet–self similarity, self-enhancement, and well-being.
9781452232959.n6 Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 131–143. http://dx.doi.org/
Coren, S. (1999). The intelligence of dogs: A guide to the thoughts, 10.1207/s15324834basp2802_3
emotions, and inner lives or our canine companions. New York, NY: Ellingsen, K., Zanella, A. J., Bjerkas, E., & Indrebo, A. (2010). The
Bantam Books. relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward
Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: pets among Norwegian dog owners. Anthrozoös, 23, 231–243. http://dx
The role of animal– human similarity in promoting immigrant human- .doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12750451258931
Enders-Slegers, M.-J. (2000). The meaning of companion animals: Qual- Furnham, A., McManus, C., & Scott, D. (2003). Personality, empathy and
itative analysis of the life histories of elderly cat and dog owners. In attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös, 16, 135–146. http://dx.doi.org/
A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals 10.2752/089279303786992260
and us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets (pp. 237– Gallup, G. G. (1997). The Gallup poll: Public opinion 1996. Wilmington,
256). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DE: Scholarly Resources.
Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social Gallup, G. G., Jr., & Suarez, S. D. (1985). Alternatives to the use of
connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived animals in psychological research. American Psychologist, 40, 1104 –
agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19, 1111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.10.1104
114 –120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x Galvin, S. L., & Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1992). Ethical ideology, animal rights
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A activism, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Ethics & Be-
three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, havior, 2, 141–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0203_1
864 – 886. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 Galvin, S. L., & Herzog, H. A. (1998). Attitudes and dispositional opti-
European Commission. (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare
mism of animal rights demonstrators. Society & Animals, 6, 1–11.
of farmed animals (Special Eurobarometer 229/Wave 63.2). Brussels,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853098X00014
Belgium: Author.
Gandhi, M. (1931). The moral basis of vegetarianism [Speech delivered
European Commission. (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal

before the London Vegetarian Society, November 20, 1931].
welfare (Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1). Brussels, Belgium:
Garrity, T. F., Stallones, L., Marx, M. B., & Johnson, T. P. (1989). Pet
Author.
ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the
Field, N. P., Orsini, L., Gavish, R., & Packman, W. (2009). Role of
elderly. Anthrozoös, 3, 35– 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
attachment in response to pet loss. Death Studies, 33, 334 –355. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481180802705783 089279390787057829
Fine, A. H. (2006). Incorporating animal-assisted therapy into psychother- Gatto, J., Dambrun, M., Kerbrat, C., & De Oliveira, P. (2010). Prejudice in
apy: Guidelines and suggestions for therapists. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), the police: On the processes underlying the effects of selection and
Animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and guidelines for group socialisation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 252–
practice (2nd ed., pp. 167–206). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.617
Foer, J. S. (2009). Eating animals. New York, NY: Little, Brown. Gelman, R. (1990). First principles organize attention to and learning about
Fox, M. W. (1997). Eating with conscience: The bioethics of food. Trout- relevant data: Number and the animate–inanimate distinction as exam-
dale, OR: NewSage Press. ples. Cognitive Science, 14, 79 –106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
Franklin, R. G., Jr., Nelson, A. J., Baker, M., Beeney, J. E., Vescio, T. K., s15516709cog1401_5
Lenz-Watson, A., & Adams, R. B., Jr. (2013). Neural responses to Geries-Johnson, B., & Kennedy, J. H. (1995). Influence of animals on
perceiving suffering in humans and animals. Social Neuroscience, 8, perceived likability of people. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 432–
217–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.763852 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1995.80.2.432
Fridlund, A. J., & MacDonald, M. (1998). Approaches to Goldie: A field Gerwolls, M. K., & Labott, S. M. (1994). Adjustment to the death of a
study of human approach responses to canine juvenescence. Anthrozoös, companion animal. Anthrozoös, 7, 172–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
11, 95–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279398787000751 089279394787001826
Friedmann, E., Barker, S. B., & Allen, K. M. (2011). Physiological Gilbey, A., McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2007). A longitudinal test of
correlates of health benefits from pets. In P. McCardle, S. McCune, J. A. the belief that companion animal ownership can help reduce loneliness.
Griffin, & V. Maholmes (Eds.), How animals affect us: Examining the Anthrozoös, 20, 345–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279307X245473
influences of human–animal interaction on child development and hu- Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Kluck, B.,
man health (pp. 163–182). Washington, DC: American Psychological & Cornwell, R. (2001). I am not an animal: Mortality salience, disgust,
Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12301-009 and the denial of human creatureliness. Journal of Experimental Psy-
Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Lynch, J. J., & Thomas, S. A. (1980). chology: General, 130, 427– 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445
Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge .130.3.427
from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95, 307–312. Gosling, S. D. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn about
Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Thomas, S. A., Lynch, J. J., & Messent,
personality from animal research? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 45– 86.
P. R. (1983). Social interaction and blood pressure: Influence of animal
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.45
companions. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171, 461– 465.
Gosling, S. D., Carson, J. S., & Potter, J. (2010). Personalities of self-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198308000-00002
identified “dog people” and “cat people.” Anthrozoös, 23, 213–222.
Friedmann, E., & Son, H. (2009). The human– companion animal bond:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303710X12750451258850
How humans benefit. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Ani-
Grandgeorge, M., Tordjman, S., Lazartigues, A., Lemonnier, E., Deleau,
mal Practice, 39, 293–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2008.10
M., & Hausberger, M. (2012). Does pet arrival trigger prosocial behav-
.015
Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S. A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support, and iors in individuals with autism? PLoS ONE, 7, e41739. http://dx.doi.org/
one-year survival after acute myocardial infarction in the Cardiac Ar- 10.1371/journal.pone.0041739
rhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST). American Journal of Cardiology, Gray, P. B., & Young, S. M. (2011). Human–pet dynamics in cross-cultural
76, 1213–1217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(99)80343-9 perspective. Anthrozoös, 24, 17–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
Friedmann, E., Thomas, S. A., Cook, L. K., Tsai, C.-C., & Picot, S. J. 175303711X12923300467285
(2007). A friendly dog as potential moderator of cardiovascular response Greif, M. L., Kemler Nelson, D. G., Keil, F. C., & Gutierrez, F. (2006).
to speech in older hypertensives. Anthrozoös, 20, 51– 63. http://dx.doi What do children want to know about animals and artifacts? Domain-
.org/10.2752/089279307780216605 specific requests for information. Psychological Science, 17, 455– 459.
Friedmann, E. (2006). The animal– human bond: Health and wellness. In http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01727.x
A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical Guéguen, N., & Ciccotti, S. (2008). Domestic dogs as facilitators in social
foundations and guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 41–58). Boston, interaction: An evaluation of helping and courtship behaviors. Anthro-
MA: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-012369484-3/50005-0 zoös, 21, 339 –349. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303708X371564
Haden, S. C., & Scarpa, A. (2005). Childhood animal cruelty: A review of Herzog, H. A., Jr. (1988). The moral status of mice. American Psycholo-
research, assessment, and therapeutic issues. Forensic Examiner, 14, gist, 43, 473– 474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.473
23–32. Herzog, H. (2006). Forty-two thousand and one Dalmatians: Fads, social
Handlin, L., Nilsson, A., Ejdebäck, M., Hydbring-Sandberg, E., & Uvnäs- contagion, and dog breed popularity. Society & Animals, 14, 383–397.
Moberg, K. (2012). Associations between the psychological character- http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853006778882448
istics of the human-dog relationship and oxytocin and cortisol levels. Herzog, H. A. (2007). Gender differences in human–animal interactions: A
Anthrozoös, 25, 215–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/1753037 review. Anthrozoös, 20, 7–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
12X13316289505468 089279307780216687
Haque, O. S., & Waytz, A. (2012). Dehumanization in medicine: Causes, Herzog, H. (2010). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: Why it’s so
solutions, and functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, hard to think straight about animals. New York, NY: Harper.
176 –186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691611429706 Herzog, H. (2011). The impact of pets on human health and psychological
Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Current Directions in Psycho-
domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 1634 –1636.
logical Science, 20, 236 –239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09637
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1072702
21411415220
Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs?

Herzog, H. A. (2013, July 29). Why do human friends (but not pets) make
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 439 – 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

people live longer [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.psychology
.tics.2005.07.003
today.com/blog/animals-and-us/201307/why-do-human-friends-not-
Harker, R. M., Collis, G. M., & McNicholas, J. (2000). The influence of
pets-make-people-live-longer
current relationships upon pet animal acquisition. In A. L. Podberscek,
Herzog, H. A., Bentley, R. A., & Hahn, M. W. (2004). Random drift and
E. S. Paul, & J. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring
the relationships between people and pets (pp. 189 –208). Cambridge, large shifts in popularity of dog breeds. Proceedings of the Royal Society
England: Cambridge University Press. B: Biological Sciences, 271(Suppl. 5), S353–S356. http://dx.doi.org/
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0185
and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/ Herzog, H. A., Jr., Betchart, N. S., & Pittman, R. B. (1991). Gender, sex
s15327957pspr1003_4 role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös, 4, 184 –191.
Haslam, N., Kashima, Y., Loughnan, S., Shi, J., & Suitner, C. (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279391787057170
Subhuman, inhuman, and superhuman: Contrasting humans with non- Herzog, H. A., Jr., & Burghardt, G. M. (1988). Attitudes toward animals:
humans in three cultures. Social Cognition, 26, 248 –258. http://dx.doi Origins and diversity. Anthrozoös, 1, 214 –222. http://dx.doi.org/
.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.248 10.2752/089279388787058317
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). How can I connect with thee: Herzog, H. A., & Galvin, S. L. (1992). Animals, archetypes, and popular
Measuring and comparing satisfaction in multiple relationship domains. culture: Tales from the tabloid press. Anthrozoös, 5, 77–92. http://dx.doi
Journal of Individual Psychology, 66, 43–58. .org/10.2752/089279392787011494
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Herzog, H. A., & Galvin, S. (1997). Common sense and the mental lives
Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood of animals: An empirical approach. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson,
(pp. 151–178). London, England: Kingsley. & H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals (pp.
Headey, B., & Grabka, M. (2007). Pets and human health in Germany and 237–253). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Australia: National longitudinal results. Social Indicators Research, 80, Herzog, H. A., & Golden, L. L. (2009). Moral emotions and social
297–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-5072-z activism: The case of animal rights. Journal of Social Issues, 65,
Headey, B., Grabka, M., Kelley, J., Reddy, P., & Tseng, Y.-P. (2002). Pet 485– 498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01610.x
ownership is good for your health and saves public expenditure too: Herzog, H. A., Jr., Vore, T. L., & New, J. C., Jr. (1989). Conversations
Australian and German longitudinal evidence. Australian Social Moni- with veterinary students: Attitudes, ethics, and animals. Anthrozoös, 2,
tor, 5, 93–99. 181–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279389787058019
Heath, S. E., Kass, P. H., Beck, A. M., & Glickman, L. T. (2001). Human Hickey, D. A. (2001). The power animal technique: Internalizing a positive
and pet-related risk factors for household evacuation failure during a symbol of strength. In H. G. Kaduson & C. E. Schaefer (Eds.), 101 more
natural disaster. American Journal of Epidemiology, 153, 659 – 665.
favorite play therapy techniques (pp. 451– 454). Lanham, MD: Aronson.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/153.7.659
Hills, A. M. (1993). The motivational bases of attitudes toward animals.
Hebb, D. O. (1946). Emotion in man and animal; an analysis of the
Society & Animals, 1, 111–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685
intuitive processes of recognition. Psychological Review, 53, 88 –106.
3093X00028
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063033
Hills, A. M. (1995). Empathy and belief in the mental experiences of
Heleski, C. R., Mertig, A. G., & Zanella, A. J. (2006). Stakeholder attitudes
animals. Anthrozoös, 8, 132–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
toward farm animal welfare. Anthrozoös, 19, 290 –307. http://dx.doi.org/
089279395787156347
10.2752/089279306785415439
Henderson, B. B., Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2011). Childhood animal Hines, L. M. (2003). Historical perspectives on the human–animal bond.
cruelty methods and their link to adult interpersonal violence. Journal of American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 7–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2211–2227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0002764203255206
0886260510383038 Horowitz, A. C. (2007). Anthropomorphism. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Encyclo-
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in pedia of human–animal relationships: A global exploration of our
the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61– 83. http://dx.doi.org/ connections with animals (pp. 60 – 66). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
10.1017/S0140525X0999152X Horowitz, A. (2009). Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis famil-
Hensley, C., Tallichet, S. E., & Dutkiewicz, E. L. (2012). The predictive iaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition, 12, 107–118. http://dx.doi.org/
value of childhood animal cruelty methods on later adult violence: 10.1007/s10071-008-0175-y
Examining demographic and situational correlates. International Jour- Horowitz, A. C., & Bekoff, M. (2007). Naturalizing anthropomorphism:
nal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 281–295. Behavioral prompts to our humanizing of animals. Anthrozoös, 20,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10397120 23–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216650
Hunt, S. J., Hart, L. A., & Gomulkiewicz, R. (1992). Role of small animals and Social Psychology, 83, 126 –137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
in social interactions between strangers. Journal of Social Psychology, 3514.83.1.126
132, 245–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1992.9922976 Kidd, A. H., Kelley, H. T., & Kidd, R. M. (1984). Personality character-
Hyers, L. L. (2006). Myths used to legitimize the exploitation of animals: istics of horse, turtle, snake, and bird owners. In R. K. Anderson, B. L.
An application of social dominance theory. Anthrozoös, 19, 194 –210. Hart, & L. A. Hart (Eds.), The pet connection: Its influence on our health
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415538 and quality of life (pp. 200 –206). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Irvine, L. (2004). A model of animal selfhood: Expanding interactionist Press.
possibilities. Symbolic Interaction, 27, 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1985). Children’s attitudes toward their pets.
si.2004.27.1.3 Psychological Reports, 57, 15–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985
Islam, A., & Towell, T. (2013). Cat and dog companionship and well- .57.1.15
being: A systematic review. International Journal of Applied Psychol- Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1987). Seeking a theory of the human/
ogy, 3, 149 –155. http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.ijap.20130306.01 companion animal bond. Anthrozoös, 1, 140 –145. http://dx.doi.org/
Jackson, L. M. (2011). Toward a wider lens: Prejudice and the natural 10.2752/089279388787058489
world The psychology of prejudice: From attitudes to social action (pp. Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1990). Social and environmental influences on
137–158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. children’s attitudes toward pets. Psychological Reports, 67, 807– 818.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12317-008 http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.67.7.807-818
Jamieson, J., Reiss, M. J., Allen, D., Asher, L., Wathes, C. M., & Abeyes- Kidd, A. H., & Kidd, R. M. (1997). Characteristics and motives of
inghe, S. M. (2012). Measuring the success of a farm animal welfare adolescent volunteers in wildlife education. Psychological Reports, 80,
education event. Animal Welfare, 21, 65–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/ 747–753. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.3.747
096272812799129402 Kidd, A. H., Kidd, R. M., & Zasloff, R. L. (1995). Developmental factors
Jerolmack, C. (2007). Animal practices, ethnicity, and community: The in positive attitudes toward zoo animals. Psychological Reports, 76,
Turkish pigeon handlers of Berlin. American Sociological Review, 72, 71– 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.1.71
874 – 894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200602 Kiesler, S., Lee, S., & Kramer, A. D. I. (2006). Relationship effects in
Johansson, M., Karlsson, J., Pedersen, E., & Flykt, A. (2012). Factors psychological explanations of nonhuman behavior. Anthrozoös, 19,
governing human fear of brown bear and wolf. Human Dimensions of 335–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415448
Wildlife, 17, 58 –74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.619001 Knight, A. J. (2008). “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic
Johnson, T. P., Garrity, T. F., & Stallones, L. (1992). Psychometric and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species
Evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS). Anthro- protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 94 –103. http://dx
zoös, 5, 160 –175. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011395 .doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001
Joly-Mascheroni, R. M., Senju, A., & Shepherd, A. J. (2008). Dogs catch Knight, S., Bard, K., Vrij, A., & Brandon, D. (2010). Human rights, animal
human yawns. Biology Letters, 4, 446 – 448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/ wrongs? Exploring attitudes toward animal use and possibilities for
rsbl.2008.0333 change. Society & Animals, 18, 251–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/
Jones, B. L., Nagin, D. S., & Roeder, K. (2001). A SAS procedure based 156853010X510771
on mixture models for estimating developmental trajectories. Sociolog- Knight, S., & Edwards, V. (2008). In the company of wolves: The physical,
ical Methods & Research, 29, 374 –393. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ social, and psychological benefits of dog ownership. Journal of Aging
0049124101029003005 and Health, 20, 437– 455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898264308315875
Joubert, C. E. (1987). Pet ownership, social interest, and sociability. Knight, S., & Herzog, H. (2009). All creatures great and small: New
Psychological Reports, 61, 401– 402. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1987 perspectives on psychology and human–animal interactions. Journal of
.61.2.401 Social Issues, 65, 451– 461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009
Joy, M. (2005). Humanistic psychology and animal rights: Reconsidering .01608.x
the boundaries of the humanistic ethic. Journal of Humanistic Psychol- Knight, S., Nunkoosing, K., Vrij, A., & Cherryman, J. (2003). Using
ogy, 45, 106 –130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022167804272628 grounded theory to examine people’s attitudes toward how animals are
Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduc- used. Society & Animals, 11, 307–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/
tion to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press. 156853003322796064
Joye, J., & De Block, A. (2011). “Nature and I are two”: A critical Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K., & Brandon, D. (2009). Science versus human
examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values, 20, welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social
189 –215. http://dx.doi.org/10.3197/096327111X12997574391724 Issues, 65, 463– 483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009
Kahn, P. H. (1997). Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypoth- .01609.x
esis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review, 17, Koivusilta, L. K., & Ojanlatva, A. (2006). To have or not to have a pet for
1– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1996.0430 better health? PLoS ONE, 1, e109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal
Kellert, S. R. (1980). American attitudes toward and knowledge of ani- .pone.0000109
mals: An update. International Journal for the Study of Animal Prob- Kubinyi, E., Miklósi, Á., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2003). Social mimetic
lems, 1, 87–119. behaviour and social anticipation in dogs: Preliminary results. Animal
Kellert, S. R. (1993). Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife Cognition, 6, 57– 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0163-1
among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Kurdek, L. A. (2008). Pet dogs as attachment figures. Journal of Social and
Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53– 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- Personal Relationships, 25, 247–266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
4560.1993.tb00908.x 0265407507087958
Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1980). Knowledge, affection, and basic Kurdek, L. A. (2009). Pet dogs as attachment figures for adult owners.
attitudes toward animals in American society: Phase III. Washington, Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 439 – 446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
DC: U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. a0014979
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Kwan, V. S. Y., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2008, October). (Non-human) animal
Washington, DC: Island Press. stereotypes: Reflections of anthropomorphism and cultural differences
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). in system-justification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality Society for Experimental Social Psychology, Sacramento, CA.
Kwong, M. J., & Bartholomew, K. (2011). “Not just a dog”: An attachment Marcu, A., Lyons, E., & Hegarty, P. (2007). Dilemmatic human–animal
perspective on relationships with assistance dogs. Attachment & Human boundaries in Britain and Romania: Post-materialist and materialist
Development, 13, 421– 436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2011 dehumanization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 875– 893.
.584410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466607X174356
Lago, D., Kafer, R., Delaney, M., & Connell, C. (1988). Assessment of Marinelli, L., Adamelli, S., Normando, S., & Bono, G. (2007). Quality of
favorable attitudes toward pets: Development and preliminary validation life of the pet dog: Influence of owner and dog’s characteristics. Applied
of self-report pet relationship scales. Anthrozoös, 1, 240 –254. http://dx Animal Behaviour Science, 108, 143–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.doi.org/10.2752/089279388787058308 .applanim.2006.11.018
Lea, S. R. G. (2007). Delinquency and animal cruelty: Myths and realities Marino, L. (2012). Construct validity of animal-assisted therapy and ac-
about social pathology. New York, NY: LFB. tivities: How important is the animal in AAT? Anthrozoös, 25(Supp. 1),
Leach, E. (1964). Anthropological aspects of language: Animal categories 139 –151. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13353430377219
and verbal abuse. In E. H. Lenneberg (Ed.), New directions in the study Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
of language (pp. 23– 63). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –
Lederer, S. E. (1992). Political animals. The shaping of biomedical re- 253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
search literature in twentieth-century America. Isis, 83, 61–79. http://dx Mason, W. A., & Kenney, M. D. (1974). Redirection of filial attachments
.doi.org/10.1086/356025 in rhesus monkeys: Dogs as mother surrogates. Science, 183, 1209 –

Levinson, B. M. (1969). Pet-oriented child psychotherapy. Springfield, IL: 1211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.183.4130.1209
Thomas. Mathews, S., & Herzog, H. A. (1997). Personality and attitudes toward the
Levinson, B. M. (1978). Pets and personality development. Psychological treatment of animals. Society & Animals, 5, 169 –175. http://dx.doi.org/
Reports, 42, 1031–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3c.1031 10.1163/156853097X00060
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of McConnell, A. R., Brown, C. M., Shoda, T. M., Stayton, L. E., & Martin,
Chicago Press. C. E. (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet
Lipp, O. V., Derakshan, N., Waters, A. M., & Logies, S. (2004). Snakes ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239 –
and cats in the flower bed: Fast detection is not specific to pictures of 1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024506
McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2000). Dogs as catalysts for social
fear-relevant animals. Emotion, 4, 233–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
interactions: Robustness of the effect. British Journal of Psychology, 91,
1528-3542.4.3.233
61–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712600161673
LoBue, V., Bloom Pickard, M., Sherman, K., Axford, C., & DeLoache,
McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2006). Animals as social supports:
J. S. (2013). Young children’s interest in live animals. British Journal of
Insights for understanding animal-assisted therapy. In A. H. Fine (Ed.),
Developmental Psychology, 31, 57– 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Theoretical foundations and
.2044-835X.2012.02078.x
guidelines for practice (2nd ed., pp. 49 –71). San Diego, CA: Academic
LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Detecting the snake in the grass:
Press.
Attention to fear-relevant stimuli by adults and young children. Psycho-
McNicholas, J., Collis, G. M., & Morley, I. E. (1995). Psychological
logical Science, 19, 284 –289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280
support as a mechanism underlying health benefits associated with pet
.2008.02081.x
ownership. In S. M. Rutter, J. Rushen, H. D. Randler, & J. C. Eddison
LoBue, V., Rakison, D. H., & DeLoache, J. S. (2010). Threat perception
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the Interna-
across the life span: Evidence for multiple converging pathways. Cur-
tional Society for Applied Ethology (pp. 119 –121). Potters Bar, England:
rent Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 375–379. http://dx.doi.org/
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare.
10.1177/0963721410388801
McNicholas, J., Gilbey, A., Rennie, A., Ahmedzai, S., Dono, J.-A., &
Lockwood, R. (1983). The influence of animals on social perception. In Ormerod, E. (2005). Pet ownership and human health: A brief review of
A. H. Katcher & A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on our lives with evidence and issues. British Medical Journal, 331, 1252–1254. http://
companion animals (pp. 57–71). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva- dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7527.1252
nia Press. McPhedran, S. (2009). Animal abuse, family violence, and child wellbeing:
Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung. [The A review. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/
innate conditions of the possibility of experience.]. Zeitschrift für Tier- 10.1007/s10896-008-9206-3
psychologie, 5, 235– 409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1943 Melson, G. F. (2001). Why the wild things are: Animals in the lives of
.tb00655.x children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lowe, S. R., Rhodes, J. E., Zwiebach, L., & Chan, C. S. (2009). The impact Melson, G. F. (2002). Psychology and the study of human–animal rela-
of pet loss on the perceived social support and psychological distress of tionships. Society & Animals, 10, 347–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/
hurricane survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 244 –247. http:// 156853002320936791
dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.20403 Melson, G. F. (2008). Children in the living world: Why animals matter for
Luke, B. (2007). Brutal: Manhood and the exploitation of animals. Cham- children’s development. In A. Fogel, B. J. King, & S. G. Shanker (Eds.),
paign: University of Illinois Press. Human development in the twenty-first century: Visionary ideas from
Lynch, J. J., & McCarthy, J. F. (1969). Social responding in dogs: Heart systems scientists (pp. 147–154). New York, NY: Cambridge University
rate changes to a person. Psychophysiology, 5, 389 –393. http://dx.doi Press.
.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1969.tb02838.x Messent, P. R. (1983). Social facilitation of contact with other people by
Mader, B., Hart, L. A., & Bergin, B. (1989). Social acknowledgments for pet dogs. In A. H. Katcher & A. M. Beck (Eds.), New perspectives on
children with disabilities: Effects of service dogs. Child Development, our lives with companion animals (pp. 37– 46). Philadelphia: University
60, 1529 –1534. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130941 of Pennsylvania Press.
Mae, L., McMorris, L. E., & Hendry, J. L. (2004). Spontaneous trait Messent, P. R., & Horsfield, S. (1985). Pet population and the pet– owner
transference from dogs to owners. Anthrozoös, 17, 225–243. http://dx bond. In The human–pet relationship (pp. 7–17). Vienna, Austria: In-
.doi.org/10.2752/089279304785643249 stitute for Interdisciplinary Research on the Human–Pet Relationship.
Manning, A., & Serpell, J. (1994). Animals and human society: Changing Michalko, R. (1999). The two-in-one: Walking with Smokie, walking with
perspectives. London, England: Routledge. blindness. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Mitchell, L. (2011). Moral disengagement and support for nonhuman human–animal bond (pp. 289 –305). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx
animal farming. Society & Animals, 19, 38 –58. http://dx.doi.org/ .doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9761-6_17
10.1163/156853011X545529 Pagani, C., Robustelli, F., & Ascione, F. R. (2007). Italian youths’ attitudes
Miura, A., Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Tanida, H. (2002). Childhood experi- toward, and concern for, animals. Anthrozoös, 20, 275–293. http://dx
ences and attitudes towards animal issues: A comparison of young adults .doi.org/10.2752/089279307X224818
in Japan and the United Kingdom. Animal Welfare, 11, 437– 448. Pagani, C., Robustelli, F., & Ascione, F. R. (2008). Animal abuse experi-
Morrison, A. R. (2009). An odyssey with animals: A veterinarian’s reflec- ences described by Italian school-aged children. In F. R. Ascione (Ed.),
tions on the animal rights and welfare debate. New York, NY: Oxford The international handbook of animal abuse and cruelty: Theory, re-
University Press. search, and application (pp. 247–268). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue
Motyl, M., Hart, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2010). When animals attack: The University Press.
effects of mortality salience, infrahumanization of violence, and author- Palmer, R., & Custance, D. (2008). A counterbalanced version of Ain-
itarianism on support for war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- sworth’s Strange Situation Procedure reveals secure-base effects in
ogy, 46, 200 –203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.012 dog– human relationships. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 109,
Myers, O. E., Jr. (1999). Human development as transcendence of the 306 –319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.002
animal body and the child–animal association in psychological thought. Parish-Plass, N. (2008). Animal-assisted therapy with children suffering
Society & Animals, 7, 121–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ from insecure attachment due to abuse and neglect: A method to lower
156853099X00031 the risk of intergenerational transmission of abuse? Clinical Child Psy-
Nakajima, S., Yamamoto, M., & Yoshimoto, N. (2009). Dogs look like chology and Psychiatry, 13, 7–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
their owners: Replications with racially homogenous owner portraits. 1359104507086338
Anthrozoös, 22, 173–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303709X434194 Parker, G. B., Gayed, A., Owen, C. A., Hyett, M. P., Hilton, T. M., &
New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). Category-specific attention for Heruc, G. A. (2010). Survival following an acute coronary syndrome: A
animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the pet theory put to the test. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121, 65–70.
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01410.x
16598 –16603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703913104 Parslow, R. A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., & Jacomb, P.
(2005). Pet ownership and health in older adults: Findings from a survey
Nimer, J., & Lundahl, B. (2007). Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-
of 2,551 community-based Australians aged 60 – 64. Gerontology, 51,
analysis. Anthrozoös, 20, 225–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
40 – 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000081433
089279307X224773
Patronek, G. J. (1999). Hoarding of animals: An under-recognized public
Odendaal, J. S. J., & Lehmann, S. M. C. (2000). The role of phenylethyl-
health problem in a difficult-to-study population. Public Health Reports,
amine during positive human– dog interaction. Acta Veterinaria, 69,
114, 81– 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/phr/114.1.81
183–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.2754/avb200069030183
Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G. P., & Ecker, C.
Odendaal, J. S. J., & Meintjes, R. A. (2003). Neurophysiological correlates
(1996). Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an animal shelter.
of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Veterinary Journal,
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 209, 572–581.
165, 296 –301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-X
Patterson-Kane, E. G., & Piper, H. (2009). Animal abuse as a sentinel for
O’Haire, M. E. (2013). Animal-assisted intervention for autism spectrum
human violence: A critique. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 589 – 614.
disorder: A systematic literature review. Journal of Autism and Devel-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01615.x
opmental Disorders, 43, 1606 –1622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-
Paul, E. S. (2000). Love of pets and love of people. In A. L. Podberscek,
012-1707-5
E. S. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring
Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention:
the relationships between people and pets (pp. 168 –186). Cambridge,
Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: England: Cambridge University Press.
General, 130, 466 – 478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466 Paul, E. S., & Podberscek, A. L. (2000). Veterinary education and students’
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record, 146, 269 –272.
Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.10.269
Review, 108, 483–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.483 Paul, E. S., & Serpell, J. A. (1993). Childhood pet keeping and humane
Opotow, S. (1993). Animals and the scope of justice. Journal of Social attitudes in young adulthood. Animal Welfare, 2, 321–337.
Issues, 49, 71– 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993 Paul, E. S., & Serpell, J. A. (1996). Obtaining a new pet dog: Effects on
.tb00909.x middle childhood children and their families. Applied Animal Behaviour
Opotow, S., & Brook, A. (2003). Identity and exclusion in rangeland Science, 47, 17–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01007-6
conflict. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural Peacock, J., Chur-Hansen, A., & Winefield, H. (2012). Mental health
environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 249 –272). implications of human attachment to companion animals. Journal of
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clinical Psychology, 68, 292–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20866
Ory, M. G., & Goldberg, E. L. (1983). Pet possession and well-being in Peretti, P. O. (1990). Elderly–animal friendship bonds. Social Behavior
elderly women. Research on Aging, 5, 389 – 409. http://dx.doi.org/ and Personality, 18, 151–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1990.18.1
10.1177/0164027583005003007 .151
Overton, J. C., Hensley, C., & Tallichet, S. E. (2012). Examining the Perrine, R. M., & Osbourne, H. L. (1998). Personality characteristics of
relationship between childhood animal cruelty motives and recurrent dog and cat persons. Anthrozoös, 11, 33– 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
adult violent crimes toward humans. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 089279398787000904
27, 899 –915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260511423256 Petrinovich, L., O’Neill, P., & Jorgensen, M. (1993). An empirical study of
Pachana, N. A., Ford, J. H., Andrew, B., & Dobson, A. J. (2005). Relations moral intuitions: Toward an evolutionary ethics. Journal of Personality
between companion animals and self-reported health in older women: and Social Psychology, 64, 467– 478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
Cause, effect or artifact? International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 3514.64.3.467
12, 103–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_8 Pierce, J. (2012). The last walk: Reflections on our pets at the end of their
Pagani, C. (2011). Children and adolescents who are kind to animals. In C. lives. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/
Blazina, G. Boyra, & D. Shen-Miller (Eds.), The psychology of the 10.7208/chicago/9780226922041.001.0001
Pifer, L., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward animal Raupp, C. D. (1999). Treasuring, trashing or terrorizing: Adult outcomes of
research: Some international comparisons. Society & Animals, 2, 95– childhood socialization about companion animals. Society & Animals, 7,
113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853094X00126 141–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853099X00040
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has Reading, R. P., Miller, B. J., & Kellert, S. R. (1999). Values and attitudes
declined. London, England: Penguin. toward prairie dogs. Anthrozoös, 12, 43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
Plous, S. (1991). An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psycholog- 089279399787000471
ical Science, 2, 194 –196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991 Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of
.tb00131.x California Press.
Plous, S. (1993a). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Regan, T. (1997). The rights of humans and other animals. Ethics &
Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- Behavior, 7, 103–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0702_2
4560.1993.tb00907.x Regan, T. (2001). Defending animal rights. Champaign: University of
Plous, S. (1993b). The role of animals in human society. Journal of Social Illinois Press.
Issues, 49, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00906.x
Rossbach, K. A., & Wilson, J. P. (1992). Does a dog’s presence make a
Plous, S. (1996a). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological
person appear more likable? Two studies. Anthrozoös, 5, 40 –51. http://
research and education: Results from a national survey of psychologists.

dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011593
American Psychologist, 51, 1167–1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-

Roy, M. M., & Christenfeld, N. J. S. (2004). Do dogs resemble their
066X.51.11.1167
owners? Psychological Science, 15, 361–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
Plous, S. (1996b). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological
j.0956-7976.2004.00684.x
research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology
Rozin, P. (2006). Domain denigration and process preference in academic
majors. Psychological Science, 7, 352–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-9280.1996.tb00388.x psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 365–376. http://
Plous, S. (2003). Is there such a thing as prejudice toward animals? In S. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00021.x
Plous (Ed.), Understanding prejudice and discrimination (pp. 509 –528). Sanders, C. R. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: Close relation-
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. ships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26,
Podberscek, A. L. (2009). Good to pet and eat: The keeping and consuming 405– 426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.3.405
of dogs and cats in South Korea. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 615– 632. Sax, B. (2000). Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, scapegoats and the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01616.x Holocaust. New York, NY: Continuum International.
Podberscek, A. L., & Gosling, S. D. (2000). Personality research on pets Scarlett, J. M., Salman, M. D., New, J. G., Jr., & Kass, P. H. (1999).
and their owners: Conceptual issues and review. In A. L. Podberscek, Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U.S. animal
E. S. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring shelters: Selected health and personal issues. Journal of Applied
the relationships between people and pets (pp. 143–167). Cambridge, Animal Welfare Science, 2, 41–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
England: Cambridge University Press. s15327604jaws0201_4
Podberscek, A. L., Paul, E. S., & Serpell, J. A. (Eds.). (2000). Companion Schenk, S. A., Templer, D. I., Peters, N. B., & Schmidt, M. (1994). The
animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets. genesis and correlates of attitudes toward pets. Anthrozoös, 7, 60 – 68.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279394787002041
Posage, J. M., Bartlett, P. C., & Thomas, D. K. (1998). Determining factors Schneider, M. S., & Harley, L. P. (2006). How dogs influence the evalu-
for successful adoption of dogs from an animal shelter. Journal of the ation of psychotherapists. Anthrozoös, 19, 128 –142. http://dx.doi.org/
American Veterinary Medical Association, 213, 478 – 482. 10.2752/089279306785593784
Preece, R., & Fraser, D. (2000). The status of animals in biblical and Schöberl, I., Wedl, M., Bauer, B., Day, J., Möstl, E., & Kotrschal, K.
Christian thought: A study in colliding values. Society & Animals, 8, (2012). Effects of owner– dog relationship and owner personality on
245–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853000511113 cortisol modulation in human– dog dyads. Anthrozoös, 25, 199 –214.
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13316289505422
proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20. http://dx.doi Schwab, C., & Huber, L. (2006). Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis famil-
.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018 iaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners.
Preylo, B. D., & Arikawa, H. (2008). Comparison of vegetarians and
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 169 –175. http://dx.doi.org/
non-vegetarians on pet attitude and empathy. Anthrozoös, 21, 387–395.
10.1037/0735-7036.120.3.169
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303708X371654
Schwartz, R. L., Fremouw, W., Schenk, A., & Ragatz, L. L. (2012).
Purkis, H. M., & Lipp, O. V. (2009). Are snakes and spiders special?
Psychological profile of male and female animal abusers. Journal of
Acquisition of negative valence and modified attentional processing by
Interpersonal Violence, 27, 846 – 861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
non-fear-relevant animal stimuli. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 430 – 452.
0886260511423254
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930801993973
Seligman, M. E. P. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy,
Raina, P., Waltner-Toews, D., Bonnett, B., Woodward, C., & Abernathy,
T. (1999). Influence of companion animals on the physical and psycho- 2, 307–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(71)80064-3
logical health of older people: An analysis of a one-year longitudinal Serpell, J. A. (1981). Childhood pets and their influence on adults’ atti-
study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47, 323–329. tudes. Psychological Reports, 49, 651– 654. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
Rajecki, D. W., Rasmussen, J. L., & Craft, H. D. (1993). Labels and the pr0.1981.49.2.651
treatment of animals: Archival and experimental cases. Society & Ani- Serpell, J. A. (1986). In the company of animals: A study of human–animal
mals, 1, 45– 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853093X00145 relationships. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Rakison, D. H., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2001). Developmental origin of the Serpell, J. A. (1987). Pet-keeping in non-Western societies: Some popular
animate–inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 209 –228. misconceptions. Anthrozoös, 1, 166 –174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.209 089279388787058443
Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school Serpell, J. A. (1989). Humans, animals, and the limits of friendship. In R.
reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20, Porter & S. Tomaselli (Eds.), The dialectics of friendship (pp. 111–129).
61–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853012X614369 New York, NY: Routledge.
Serpell, J. (1991). Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of 167–177). New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
human health and behaviour. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 4419-9761-6_10
84, 717–720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014107689108401209 Siegel, J. M., Angulo, F. J., Detels, R., Wesch, J., & Mullen, A. (1999).
Serpell, J. (Ed.). (1995). The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour, and AIDS diagnosis and depression in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study:
interactions with people. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University The ameliorating impact of pet ownership. AIDS Care, 11, 157–170.
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540129948054
Serpell, J. A. (1996). Evidence for an association between pet behavior and Signal, T. D., & Taylor, N. (2007). Attitude to animals and empathy:
owner attachment levels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47, 49 – 60. Comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthro-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(95)01010-6 zoös, 20, 125–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303707X207918
Serpell, J. A. (1999a). Guest editor’s introduction: Animals in children’s Simon, L. J. (1984). The pet trap: Negative effects of pet ownership on
lives. Society & Animals, 7, 87–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ families and individuals. In R. K. Anderson, B. L. Hart, & L. A. Hart
156853099X00013 (Eds.), The pet connection: Its influence on our health and quality of life
Serpell, J. A. (1999b). Sheep in wolves’ clothing? Attitudes to animals (pp. 226 –240). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
among farmers and scientists. In F. Dolins (Ed.), Attitudes to animals: Simons, L. A., Simons, J., McCallum, J., & Friedlander, Y. (2000). Pet
Views in animal welfare (pp. 26 –33). Cambridge, England: Cambridge ownership is not associated with future health: A nine year prospective
University Press. study in older Australians. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 19, 139 –
Serpell, J. A. (2000). Creatures of the unconscious: Companion animals as 142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2000.tb00166.x
mediators. In A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Singer, P. (1981). The concept of moral standing. In A. L. Caplan & D.
Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships between people Callahan (Eds.), Ethics in hard times (pp. 31– 45). New York, NY:
and pets (pp. 108 –121). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4022-5_2
Press. Singer, P. (2009). Animal liberation: The definitive classic of the animal
Serpell, J. A. (2002). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection— movement (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Beyond the “cute response.” Society & Animals, 10, 437– 454. http://dx Smith, J. R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Do as we say and as we do: The
.doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936926 interplay of descriptive and injunctive group norms in the attitude–
Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and behaviour relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 647–
their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(Supp. 1), 145–151. 666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466607X269748
Serpell, J. A. (2005). Factors influencing veterinary students career choices Snodgrass, J. G., Sharma, S. K., Jhala, Y. S., Lacy, M. G., Advani, M.,
and attitudes to animals. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32, Bhargava, N. K., & Upadhyay, C. (2007). Beyond self-interest and
491– 496. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.32.4.491 altruism: Herbalist and leopard brothers in an Indian wildlife sanctuary.
Serpell, J. A. (2009). Having our dogs and eating them too: Why animals Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 375–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
are a social issue. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 633– 644. http://dx.doi 10871200701555261
.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01617.x Soares, C. J. (1985). The companion animal in the context of the family
Serpell, J. A., & Paul, E. S. (1994). Pets and the development of positive system. Marriage & Family Review, 8, 49 – 62. http://dx.doi.org/
attitudes to animals. In A. Manning & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Animals and 10.1300/J002v08n03_05
human society: Changing perspectives (pp. 127–144). London, England: Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror manage-
Routledge. ment theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self-
Sherick, I. (1981). The significance of pets for children. Illustrated by esteem and cultural worldviews. In P. Z. Mark (Ed.), Advances in
latency-age girl’s use of pets in her analysis. Psychoanalytic Study of the experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 93–159). San Diego, CA:
Child, 36, 193–215. Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60328-7
Sherif, M. (1966). The psychology of social norms. Oxford, England: Souter, M. A., & Miller, M. D. (2007). Do animal-assisted activities
Harper. effectively treat depression? A meta-analysis. Anthrozoös, 20, 167–180.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Ingroup and intergroup relations: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/175303707X207954
Experimental analysis. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Social Straatman, I., Hanson, E. K. S., Endenburg, N., & Mol, J. A. (1997). The
psychology (pp. 221–266). New York, NY: Harper & Row. influence of a dog on male students during a stressor. Anthrozoös, 10,
Shiloh, S., Sorek, G., & Terkel, J. (2003). Reduction of state–anxiety by 191–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279397787001012
petting animals in a controlled laboratory experiment. Anxiety, Stress, Sugawara, A., Masud, M. M., Yokoyama, A., Mizutani, W., Watanuki, S.,
and Coping, 16, 387–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1061580 Yanai, K., . . . Tashiro, M. (2012). Effects of presence of a familiar pet
031000091582 dog on regional cerebral activity in healthy volunteers: A positron
Shore, E. R., Riley, M. L., & Douglas, D. K. (2006). Pet owner behaviors emission tomography study. Anthrozoös, 25, 25–34. http://dx.doi.org/
and attachment to yard versus house dogs. Anthrozoös, 19, 325–334. 10.2752/175303712X13240472427311
http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279306785415466 Swabe, J. (2000). Veterinary dilemmas: Ambiguity and ambivalence in
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory human–animal interaction. In A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul, & J. A.
of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring the relationships
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043 between people and pets (pp. 292–312). Cambridge, England: Cam-
Siegel, J. M. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services bridge University Press.
among the elderly: The moderating role of pet ownership. Journal of Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1081–1086. http://dx.doi.org/ psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1081 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
Siegel, J. M. (1993). Companion animals: In sickness and in health. behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of inter-
Journal of Social Issues, 49, 157–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- group relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
4560.1993.tb00915.x Tannenbaum, J. (1993). Veterinary medical ethics: A focus of conflicting
Siegel, J. M. (2011). Pet ownership and health. In C. Blazina, G. Boyra, & interests. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 143–156. http://dx.doi.org/
D. Shen-Miller (Eds.), The psychology of the human–animal bond (pp. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00914.x
Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1994). Theories of intergroup Voith, V. L., Wright, J. C., & Danneman, P. J. (1992). Is there a relation-
relations: International social psychological perspectives (2nd ed.). ship between canine behavior problems and spoiling activities, anthro-
Westport, CT: Praeger. pomorphism, and obedience training? Applied Animal Behaviour Sci-
Taylor, N., & Signal, T. D. (2005). Empathy and attitudes to animals. ence, 34, 263–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80121-2
Anthrozoös, 18, 18 –27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279305785594342 Vollum, S., Buffington-Vollum, J., & Longmire, D. R. (2004). Moral
Templer, D. I., Connelly, H. J., Bassman, L., & Hart, J. (2006). Construc- disengagement and attitudes about violence toward animals. Society &
tion and validation of an Animal–Human Continuity Scale. Social Be- Animals, 12, 209 –235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1568530042880668
havior and Personality, 34, 769 –776. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp Vormbrock, J. K., & Grossberg, J. M. (1988). Cardiovascular effects of
.2006.34.7.769 human-pet dog interactions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 509 –
Templer, D. I., Salter, C. A., Dickey, S., Baldwin, R., & Vebler, D. M. 517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00844843
(1981). The construction of a Pet Attitude Scale. Psychological Record, Wagstaff, G. F. (1991). Attitudes toward animals and human beings.
31, 343–348. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 573–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Thibault, P., Bourgeois, P., & Hess, U. (2006). The effect of group- 00224545.1991.9713887
identification on emotion recognition: The case of cats and basketball Waters, A., Lipp, O., & Randhawa, R. (2011). Visual search with animal
players. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 676 – 683. fear-relevant stimuli: A tale of two procedures. Motivation and Emotion,
35, 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9191-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.006
Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2006). An investigation into the associ- Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., &
ation between the witnessing of animal abuse and adolescents’ behavior Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making sense by making sentient: Effectance
toward animals. Society & Animals, 14, 221–243. http://dx.doi.org/ motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and
10.1163/156853006778149163 Social Psychology, 99, 410 – 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020240
Thorpe, R. J., Serpell, J. A., & Suomi, S. J. (2011). Challenges to human– Wells, D. L. (2004). The facilitation of social interactions by domestic
animal interaction research: Methodological issues and barriers to sus- dogs. Anthrozoös, 17, 340 –352. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
tainability. In P. McCardle, S. McCune, J. A. Griffin, L. Esposito, & 089279304785643203
L. S. Freund (Eds.), Animals in our lives: Human/animal interaction in Wells, D. L. (2005). The effect of videotapes of animals on cardiovascular
family, community, and therapeutic settings (pp. 217–225). Baltimore, responses to stress. Stress and Health, 21, 209 –213. http://dx.doi.org/
MD: Brookes. 10.1002/smi.1057
Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á., Virányi, Z., Kubinyi, E., & Csányi, V. Wells, D. L. (2009). The effects of animals on human health and well-
(2005). Attachment to humans: A comparative study on hand-reared being. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 523–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
wolves and differently socialized dog puppies. Animal Behaviour, 70, j.1540-4560.2009.01612.x
1367–1375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.03.025 Westbury, H. R., & Neumann, D. L. (2008). Empathy-related responses to
Topolski, R., Weaver, J. N., Martin, Z., & McCoy, J. (2013). Choosing moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in
between the emotional dog and the rational pal: A moral dilemma with negative circumstances. Biological Psychology, 78, 66 –74. http://dx.doi
a tail. Anthrozoös, 26, 253–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/ .org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.12.009
175303713X13636846944321 Wilson, C. C. (1991). The pet as an anxiolytic intervention. Journal of
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural Nervous and Mental Disease, 179, 482– 489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506 –520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 00005053-199108000-00006
0033-295X.96.3.506 Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Tuber, D. S., Sanders, S., Hennessy, M. B., & Miller, J. A. (1996). Press.
Behavioral and glucocorticoid responses of adult domestic dogs (Canis Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethics. In S. R. Kellert
familiaris) to companionship and social separation. Journal of Compar- & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31– 41). Washing-
ative Psychology, 110, 103–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036 ton, DC: Island Press.
.110.1.103 Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena;
Udell, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2008). A review of domestic dogs’ a study of the first not-me possession. International Journal of Psycho-
(Canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: Or why behavior analysts Analysis, 34, 89 –97.
should stop worrying and love their dogs. Journal of the Experimental Wipper, A. (2000). The partnership: The horse–rider relationship in event-
Analysis of Behavior, 89, 247–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2008 ing. Symbolic Interaction, 23, 47–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/si.2000
.89-247 .23.1.47
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011a). An attachment
Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137). perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assess-
Washington, DC: Island Press. ment of pet attachment orientations. Journal of Research in Personality,
Vigorito, M. (1996). An animal rights attitude survey of undergraduate 45, 345–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.04.001
psychology students. Psychological Reports, 79, 131–142. http://dx.doi Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011b). Pet in the
.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.1.131 therapy room: An attachment perspective on animal-assisted therapy.
Viki, G. T., Winchester, L., Titshall, L., Chisango, T., Pina, A., & Russell, Attachment & Human Development, 13, 541–561. http://dx.doi.org/
R. (2006). Beyond secondary emotions: The infrahumanization of out- 10.1080/14616734.2011.608987
groups using human-related and animal-related words. Social Cognition, Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Pets as safe
24, 753–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.6.753 havens and secure bases: The moderating role of pet attachment orien-
Vittersø, J., Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (1998). Attachment to live- tations. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 571–580. http://dx.doi
stock and attitudes toward large carnivores among sheep farmers in .org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.06.005
Norway. Anthrozoös, 11, 210 –217. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/
089279398787000490 Received August 30, 2013
Voith, V. L. (1985). Attachment of people to companion animals. Veteri- Revision received August 26, 2014
nary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 15, 289 –295. Accepted September 4, 2014 䡲

Psychological Bulletin: Toward A Psychology of Human-Animal Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Bulletin: Toward A Psychology of Human-Animal Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Bulletin

Toward a Psychology of Human–Animal Relations

Toward a Psychology of Human–Animal Relations

Catherine E. Amiot Brock Bastian

Evolutionary Factors Fear

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

Developmental and learning processes

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

Factors associated with work, religion, and culture

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

Individual differences, ideological beliefs, and gender

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

Psychological health and well-being

years old families engaged in more leisure

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

tasks in presence of pet compared to

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

correlational animal needs, especially under

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

empathy and skin conductance in

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

Study Country Population Sample size Design Focus of study

animal abuse and experimental graduate from violence against

animal contact interventions have also been shown to improve

Factors Associated With Work, Religion, and Culture

(1991) asked participants to respond to Bem’s Sex Role Inventory

and also measured attitudes toward animal welfare issues. They

thinking about the pet (Zilcha-Mano et al., 2012).

particularly suited to this aim. Moderators also possibly come into

Turner, 1986). In contrast, focusing on the similarities that exist

between different social groups yields more intergroup tolerance

relations have important consequences for humans and animals j.2044-8295.1994.tb02522.x

.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3 therapy enhances resident social interaction and initiation in long-term

.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.8.905 Support for animal rights as a function of belief in evolution, religious

European Commission. (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal

Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs?

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 439 – 444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j

.doi.org/10.1086/356025 in rhesus monkeys: Dogs as mother surrogates. Science, 183, 1209 –

research and education: Results from a national survey of psychologists.

American Psychologist, 51, 1167–1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-

You might also like