essay on relationship between human beings and animals

18.1 Humans and Animals

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Restate the scientific meaning of animal .
• Describe the human-animal continuum.
• Define multispecies ethnography.
• Identify highlights in the domestication of dogs.

The Human-Animal Continuum

Nonhuman animals are part of many facets of our lives. Many people rely on animals as part of food and subsistence systems, particularly in the areas of hunting, herding, and agriculture. Some people worship deities who are all or part animal. Many people recognize animals as symbols of clans or sports teams. For example, did your school have an animal as the mascot for its sports or debate teams? Across cultures, people love animals as pets and companions, and, as recognized by evolutionary theory, humans are connected to animals as ancestors and relatives. Animals are integral parts of the lives of humans around the world, in which they play a variety of roles. Defining an animal, however, can be complicated.

With some exceptions, an animal is defined in science as a multicellular organism, either vertebrate or invertebrate, that can breathe, move, ingest and excrete food and food products, and reproduce sexually. This clearly also includes the human species. Western philosophical tradition supports this inclusion. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) grouped animals as being blooded (e.g., humans, mammals, birds, fish), non-blooded (e.g., shelled animals, insects, soft-skinned sea animals), or what he called dualizers , with mixed characteristics (e.g., whales, who live in the sea but have live births; bats, who have four legs but fly). Aristotle classified humans as animals with the intellectual ability to reason. In 1735, Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus introduced his binomial classification , which used two terms to identify every living organism: a genus and a species designation. In his work Systema Naturae (1735), Linnaeus divided the living world into two large kingdoms, the Regnum Animale (animal kingdom) and the Regnum Vegetabile (plant kingdom). Like Aristotle before him, Linnaeus classified humans as animals. Today, the scientific approach to the study of the animal kingdom accepts that there is a continuum between all living animal species with grades of difference between species. However, even though humans are animals, people across cultures define themselves as separate from animals.

French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009) argued that cultures universally define themselves in opposition to what they view as nature , a domain they define as outside or on the margins of human culture. Humans and human culture are typically seen as everything that is not nature or animal. This makes animals and nature very important concepts to human societies, because they shed light on how people think of themselves as human beings in the world. Lévi-Strauss famously said of animals that they are “good to think” (1963, 89), meaning that animals provide good ways for humans to think about themselves . Animals are used as symbols in all cultures, a sign of the human tendency to identify similarities and differences between ourselves and (other) animals.

In all societies, culture plays an important role in shaping how people define animals. Cultures assign various meanings to animals; they are ancestral spirits or deities, companions, work animals, wild and dangerous creatures, and even objects on display in zoos or raised in factory farms for food. Think of American culture, which both loves and dotes on dogs as members of the family and raises pigs as a food commodity. In other cultures, dogs are considered a food species. Among the North American Lakota people, dog meat is considered a medicinal food (see Meyers and Weston 2020), and in Vietnam, specially designated restaurants serve dog meat as a male aphrodisiac (Avieli 2011). To further illustrate the blurring of boundaries between categories of animals, some species of pigs, such as the potbellied pig, are kept as family pets in the United States. How do cultures designate species as being one thing and not another?

The study of group identity is central to anthropology. Different cultures distinguish what is animal from what is human by comparing “the other” with themselves. Sometimes called us versus them , we versus they , or even the Other , capitalized, this binary (two-component) comparison is a human tendency observed across cultures.

It is common for cultural groups to distinguish between humans and nonhuman species and also to designate some humans as “other” and not as fully human—comparable to animals or even isolated parts of animals. In the Andes , indigenous Quechua and Aymara speakers refer to themselves as runa , meaning “people” or “humans.” Those who do not speak their languages and do not live in the Andes are, by extension, nonhuman and are typically referred to as q’ara , meaning literally “naked and bare,” referring to their lack of social ties and community (Zorn 1995). This distinction between those within the group and those without is common among Indigenous groups all over the world as well as within Western societies. Although the origin of the word frogs as an epithet (nickname) for the French is contested, it appears to have begun within France itself as a way of referring to people who lived in Paris and ate frog legs. By the late 18th century, however, frogs had begun to show up in English newspapers and other written sources as a pejorative, insulting term for all French people (Tidwell 1948). Not to be outdone, the French have traditionally referred to the English as rosbifs (roast beefs), a food common in English cuisine.

Although these examples are relatively lighthearted, there is a dark side to human-animal imagery. In a recent book, German freelance journalist Jan Mohnhaupt (2020) examines the distorted relationships that some Nazi leaders had with animals. After coming to power in Germany in 1937, the Nazi state enacted many laws against the Jewish people, among them a 1942 law that made it illegal for Jewish people to own pets, while Nazi leader Adolf Hitler doted on his dog and military commander Hermann Göring kept lions as pets. Preventing them from having companion animals was yet another way in which the Nazis sought to dehumanize Jewish people. Human-animal relationships are important to our sense of selfhood.

In this chapter, we will explore various cultures’ approaches to and understandings of nonhuman animals, including both living and symbolic animals, and the diverse ways in which humans interact with and think about these “other” beings.

Multispecies Ethnography

In his essay “Why Look at Animals?,” English art critic and poet John Berger writes, “To suppose that animals first entered the human imagination as meat or leather or horn is to project a 19th century attitude backwards across the millennia. Animals first entered the imagination as messengers and promises” ([1980] 1991, 4). Recent trends in anthropological scholarship attempt to interact with these messengers and understand the relationship that humans and animals share. The term polyspecific refers to the interactions of multiple species. The relationships shared between humans and other species began with our ancestors millions of years ago.

The specialty of human-animal studies within anthropology suggests new forms of scholarship that deliberately move away from anthropocentrism , which focuses on humans as if they are the only species that matters. Human-animal studies opens a window into different ways of thinking about what it means to be human. One approach within the specialty, called multispecies ethnography , pays careful attention to the interactions of humans and other species within their shared environment—whether those other species be plant, animal, fungal, or microbial. Multispecies ethnographies are especially focused on the study of symbiosis , which is a mutually beneficial relationship between species.

Researchers conducting multispecies ethnographies utilize a broad, holistic approach that takes into account questions such as where and how interactions between humans and animals occur. This approach is more complex than traditional ethnography because it requires that the researcher acknowledge both the perspectives of nonhuman actors and their roles in how we see and understand ourselves.

Cultural anthropologists and ecologists Kirill Istomin and Mark James Dwyer (2010) conducted multispecies ethnographies between two different herding populations in Russia: the Izhma Komi , who live in northeast European Russia, and the Nenets in western Siberia. The two groups live in environments that are comparable in terms of geography, average temperatures, and precipitation, and they herd the same subspecies of reindeer year-round. Yet their herding styles are completely different. The Izhma Komi divide their reindeer into two large groups: a family group consisting of non-castrated males, females, and calves, called a kör , and a group of castrated males used for transportation and hauling, called a byk . Herders accompany the two groups to two separate grazing grounds during the day and direct them back to camp at night. While foraging for food, the reindeer stay within their particular groups and do not wander away. In contrast, the Nenets allow their reindeer to freely disperse and wander during the day, only occasionally observing their general whereabouts and well-being. Unlike the Izhma Komi herds, which stay in their two large groups, the Nenets animals forage in smaller groups and reunite at night as a single herd when they return on their own to camp for protection. Unlike wild reindeer, who do not routinely live in and around human encampments, these groups have a symbiotic relationship with their herders. The humans get meat, some limited milk, and leather for clothing, shoes, and trade products from the reindeer, and the reindeer get protection and supplemental foods at the campsite from the herders.

Istomin and Dwyer’s research notes behaviors that the reindeer have learned from their human herders, but it also addresses social learning within the herds. In their interviews with the researchers, both Izhma Komi and Nenets herders told stories about the difficulties they faced when introducing new, so-called unmanageable animals into the herds. These new animals had not yet learned the herding routines of the group they were joining. Some wandered off and were lost before they could adapt to the particular herd culture. Istomin and Dwyer conclude that the animals themselves pass along behavioral knowledge to each other across generations as offspring follow and learn from their mothers and other adult reindeer. This conclusion challenges the notion that animal behavior is solely genetic and instinctual. Expanding ethnographies to include an understanding of what animals are doing and thinking is a primary objective of multispecies ethnography.

Despite its recent emergence in anthropology as a separate specialty, the multispecies perspective has a long history. Nineteenth-century amateur anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan ’s research on the North American beaver (1868), which includes material on beavers’ adaptation to and interaction with humans, remains one of the most insightful and perceptive works on the species. And the research conducted in the 1930s by British anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard on the relationship between the Nuer people of Africa and their cattle resulted in an ethnographic account of their interdependence, both socially and economically.

More recently, cultural anthropologist Darrell Posey used a multispecies ethnographic approach in his work “Wasps, Warriors, and Fearless Men” (1981). In this case, the relationships of interest are between humans and insects. Posey’s work utilizes a lens of ethnoentomology , exploring the relationships that the Kayapó people of central Brazil have with local insects and how these relationships shape their perception of themselves as human. Posey documents how Kayapó warriors deliberately provoke a local species of wasp to sting them, using the “secret” of the venom to become more powerful:

The warriors dance at the foot of the scaffolding and sing of the secret strength they received from the wasps to defeat the giant beetle. The women wail ceremonially in high-pitched, emotional gasps as the warriors, two-by-two, ascend the platform to strike with their bare hands the massive hive. Over and over again they strike the hive to receive the stings of the wasps until they are semi-conscious from the venomous pain. This ceremony is one of the most important to the Kayapo: it is a re-affirmation of their humanity, a statement of their place in the universe, and a communion with the past. (172)

A Case Study: Domestication of Dogs

Humans interact with and relate to animal species that live in the wild as well as those that depend on them for their survival. Animals that are dependent on human beings are typically the result of domestication . Evidence suggests that early humans quickly developed a clear understanding of how selective breeding works, encouraging animals that shared preferred characteristics to mate and produce offspring. These desired traits included a calm temperament; the ability to get along with conspecifics , or members of one’s own species; usually a smaller body so that the animal could be gathered or herded in larger numbers; and an attachment to or tolerance of humans.

The dog ( Canis lupus familiaris ) is believed to have been among the earliest animal domesticates, possibly the first. The origins of the domesticated dog are controversial. Most scientists agree that dogs originated from wolves, particularly from the subspecies Canis lupus pallipes (Indian wolf) and Canis lupus lupus (Eurasian wolf). The wide variety among dog breeds indicates that other wolf subspecies were also involved in selective breeding, making today’s dogs animal hybrids.

Wolves have various natural instincts that make them excellent candidates for domestication. They are highly social scavengers who could easily have become accustomed to human settlements and food handouts at a young age, and they have a hierarchical social structure that includes status and submission within the pack, traits that would predispose them to conforming to human direction and domination. Dogs today vary genetically by only about 0.2 percent from some of their ancestral wolf subspecies.

Historically and cross-culturally, humans benefit in many ways from their relationships with dogs:

• Guarding and protection. Dogs are naturally territorial and highly social; they are both biologically and behaviorally prone to be keenly aware of their physical surroundings and their group (or pack). The impulse to guard and protect is a genetic trait that was easily manipulated in the species as humans selectively bred animals that were particularly loyal to their families and attentive to their property. As part of the domestication process, humans selected for dogs who exhibited a bark-howl response when alerted, with the result that domesticated dogs bark when concerned or excited. Among wolves, the bark is only used as an initial alert (Yin 2002). Wolves do not call attention to themselves as dogs do.
• Hunting. Descended as it is from a wild predator, the domestic dog can be an excellent hunter and retriever. A trained dog offers considerable benefits to humans in the hunting of prey. Some Indigenous groups, such as the Chono of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, trained their dogs to dive and to fish for seals. The Tahltan people of Canada used dogs on bear hunts. In czarist Russia, borzoi dogs were used to hunt for wolves.
• Herding. Dogs were key to the development of pastoralism, a subsistence system based on herding animals. Many pastoral societies utilized dogs as shepherds for domesticated herds of sheep, goats, cattle, and even fowl. Once trained to identify and protect its herd, a dog can be a fierce defender of and guide for animals foraging away from human settlements. Trained herding dogs can shepherd their flocks on a consistent trail without constant human surveillance. Selective breeding moderated a natural instinct in dogs referred to as eye-stalk-chase-bite , a sequence of steps utilized by dogs to focus on another animal when hunting. This moderated instinct enables dogs to guide and protect another species by keeping the animals rounded up and moving away from danger. While not utilized by every pastoral society, dogs are considered vital to most pastoral societies, even today (see the Ethnographic Sketch at the end of the chapter).
• Transportation. Historically, dogs served as beasts of burden, especially in cultures that had no larger domesticated animals such as the horse, donkey, or cow. Many Indigenous peoples used dogs to carry young children or possessions. Among North American Indigenous cultures such as the Assiniboine , Apache , and Inuit , dogs were traditionally used for transportation. Some of these groups developed specialized technology, such as the travois and the sledge, that allowed them to harness a dog to a platform loaded with items to be moved.
• Meat. In some cultures, domesticated dogs offer a dependable source of meat. Some of the earliest evidence of dog eating was found at a prehistoric rock shelter site located at Hinds Cave, Texas. At the Hinds Cave site, geneticist Raul Tito and his team identified domesticated dog remains in human coprolites (fossilized feces) dating to 9260 BP. From the Preclassic through the late Postclassic period (2000 BCE–1519 CE) in what is now Mexico, various Indigenous cultures, including the Olmec , Zapotec , Aztec , and Maya , raised and consumed dogs as a source of protein (Thompson 2008), eventually developing a hairless breed of dog known today as the Xoloitzcuintli . This breed existed when the Spanish arrived in Mexico in the 16th century.

Although dogs are primarily pets in contemporary societies, they continue to play other important roles in a wide range of human activities. As just a few examples, dogs are used as drug detectives at airports, therapy animals for a wide range of human needs, and guides and helpers for those living with physical challenges. Dogs also continue to be used as shepherds, hunting companions, and guards.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, Marjorie M. Snipes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Anthropology
• Publication date: Feb 23, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/18-1-humans-and-animals

© Dec 20, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Advertisement

Ethics and Human–Animal Relations: Review Essay

• Review Paper
• Published: 09 July 2021
• Volume 34 , article number  23 , ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Anna Peterson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6310-5334 1  

754 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This review essay considers five recent books that address the ethical dimensions of human–animal relations. The books are David Favre, Respecting Animals: A Balanced Approach to our Relationship with Pets, Food, and Wildlife; T. J. Kasperbauer, Subhuman: The Moral Psychology of Human Attitudes to Animals; Ben Minteer, The Fall of the Wild: Extinction, De-Extinction, and the Ethics of Conservation; Heather Swanson, Marianne Lien, and Gro Ween, eds., Domestication Gone Wild: Politics and Practices of Multispecies Relations; and Thom van Dooren, The Wake of Crows: Living and Dying in Shared Worlds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Comment: Between Wild and Domesticated: Rethinking Categories and Boundaries in Response to Animal Agency

Robert Nozick on Nonhuman Animals: Rights, Value and the Meaning of Life

Taking Animal Perspectives into Account in Animal Ethics

Gary Francione, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996).

Ben A. Minteer, The Landscape of Reform: Civic Pragmatism and Environmental Thought in America (MIT Press, 2006), 1.

Minteer, The Landscape of Reform , 197.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Religion, University of Florida, PO Box 117410, Gainesville, FL, 32611-7410, USA

Anna Peterson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Peterson .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Peterson, A. Ethics and Human–Animal Relations: Review Essay. J Agric Environ Ethics 34 , 23 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-021-09864-1

Download citation

Accepted : 24 June 2021

Published : 09 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-021-09864-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Animal ethics
• Animal studies
• Human-animal studies
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How humans and animals can live together

• environment
• global issues
• biodiversity

The Benefits of Animals to Humans Essay

Why are animals important to humans? Find here the answer! This short essay on the benefits of animals to humans gives reasons why animal world is so important for human beings and environment.

Introduction

• Importance of Animals to Humans

Reference List

Animals refer to all things that belong to the kingdom Animalia. They are eukaryotic hence are easily distinguished from other creatures. Some animals are domesticated while others are called wild animals. Domestic animals are those that live together with or are kept by human beings. Wild animals are those that are not kept by human beings. There are different types of animals, and they include the vertebrates and invertebrates. Vertebrates are those that have backbones while invertebrates lack backbones. The vertebrates comprise of mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Invertebrates include spiders and insects. Animals differ, but they possess some similar characteristics. First animals are heterotrophic. Secondly, animals are multicellular, meaning that their bodies are differentiated into tissues. Most animals can move. Most of the animals reproduce sexually except for a few of them that reproduce asexually. Most of them do not have rigid cell walls.

Why Are Animals Important to Humans

The significance of animals to human beings cannot be overlooked. Animals affect one’s life in different ways despite our reactions towards them. Animals play social, personal, or business roles in the lives of human beings (Morris 2020). They are important to all of us whether we love, hate, eat, or protect them. The presence of the animals within the ecosystem is so significant that we cannot do without them.

The following are some of the reasons that make animals matter to human beings. They provide companionship: Some animals serve as pets, for example, dogs, cats, and guinea pigs. They live with us, and therefore we see them face to face daily as part of our companions (Prato-Previde, Ricci and Colombo 2022). They sometimes portray quietness when they are alone; happiness, when playing, can also become one’s best friend.

The most interesting part of the companionship is where a dog welcomes or greets the owner at the door. Some animals are used in rehabilitation, especially, pet animals such as dogs. A person intending to use them for this purpose must first seek authorization or certification from the relevant authority (Morris 2020). They are mostly used when carrying out rehabilitation at the social level.

Thus, the dog is permitted to visit people living in nursing homes or equivalents. In such a setting, they help restore what might have been lost. Animals can be used to teach child caretaking skills. When one has a pet, it must be fed and watered at different times of the day. The pet may also require bathing and training at some other times (Morris 2020). These duties can be delegated to a child occasionally, thus helping create in the child a sense of compassion to the pet.

As a result, the child develops a habit of being responsible. The child, therefore, learns to be responsible through the learning aid, which is the pet. They are useful in supporting human beings at work. Some are used to plow by pulling plows. Others are used in transportation where they pool wagons (De-Mello 2021). The best examples under this category are the horses and the oxen.

Today, horses are also used in winning awards by riding on them. Animals also serve the purpose of enabling individuals to earn a living especially farmers. Farmers do keep such animals as cows, goats, sheep, cattle, and other animals to enable them to earn a living (Prato-Previde, Ricci and Colombo 2022). When such animals are sold, the farmer obtains revenue, which he uses to acquire other essential goods and services required to earn a living.

This is helpful in increasing the standards of living of the farmers. The other significance of animals to human beings is that they are a source of food. Most animals that human beings keep are meant for food. For example, milk, eggs, meat, and other food items. Everyone consumes either animals or animal related products (De-Mello 2021). The food products are consumed directly or sold for money.

As a result, they contribute to a country’s gross domestic product. This means improved living standards. In some other cases, these products are also exported to other countries thus earning foreign exchange. Also, animals are also important in leisure and sports activities (Prato-Previde, Ricci and Colombo 2022). For example, dogs can be used to hunt other animals required as human food while some other animals are used as trackers.

In sporting, horses are used for horseback riding and polo, which are forms of sports. Research and inventions: animals are known to be used by scientists to test their experiments. When scientists discover a new thing that is to be used by human beings, the first experiment with its effects on animals (De-Mello 2021). If it adversely affects the animals, then it implies that it will also affect human beings in the same way.

Where no effect is manifested, then they would proceed to experiment it on human beings. Hence animals contribute to research and development of human beings. Animals serve to attract tourists into the country (Morris 2020). Many people come from their countries to other countries to come and see certain animals. When such tourists visit the country, they increase the country’s income.

It is a major source of revenue to the country thus enabling the country to provide goods and services to its citizens. They are a good source of security to human beings. Some animals protect man from invasion by other animals and even by human beings. For example, dogs are used to protect their homes at night (Knight 2020). Also, police officers also use dogs during wars as well as in the maintenance of law and order.

When going for their duties, police officers go with police dogs for protection. Clothing: Animal products are used to make clothes. Most of the clothes human beings wear are mostly made from products of animals (De-Mello 2021). For example, skins for making shoes while wool is used to make clothes. These clothes and shoes protect human beings from adverse weather conditions.

Finally, some animal products such as hooves and horns can be used as containers for making traditional drinking vessels. On the other hand, animal bones can be used to make such things as ornaments, weapons, and needles (De-Mello 2021). The horses were also used to produce insulin before the discovery of artificial insulin. In conclusion, animals play important roles in the lives of people.

It is upon people and society to ensure that animals, as well as their products, are handled properly. This is because they provide people with food, companionship, security, income, foreign exchange, and other benefits that have been discussed above. Thus, it is evident that animals matter to human beings. As a result, human beings need animals for their survival.

De-Mello, Margo. 2021. Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies . New York: Columbia University Press.

Knight, John. 2020. Animals in Person: Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacies . New York: Routledge

Morris, Brian. 2020. Animals and Ancestors: An Ethnography . New York: Routledge.

Prato-Previde, Emanuela, Elisa Basso Ricci, and Elisa Silvia Colombo. 2022. “ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding .” Animals 12 (20).

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 26). The Benefits of Animals to Humans Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animals-importance-for-human-beings/

"The Benefits of Animals to Humans Essay." IvyPanda , 26 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/animals-importance-for-human-beings/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'The Benefits of Animals to Humans Essay'. 26 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "The Benefits of Animals to Humans Essay." March 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animals-importance-for-human-beings/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Benefits of Animals to Humans Essay." March 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animals-importance-for-human-beings/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Benefits of Animals to Humans Essay." March 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animals-importance-for-human-beings/.

• Humans Are Not the “Last Point” in the Evolution of Vertebrates
• Effect of Sound Waves on the Invertebrates Behavior
• Benthic Macro-Invertebrates Diversity
• Biology of the Invertebrates: Malaria
• Principles of Nervous System in Animals
• The Convenience of the Emergency Care System
• Palaeontology. Interpreting Behaviour in the Fossil Record
• Dedan Kimathi: Criminal or Heroic Pioneer
• The Evolution of Vertebrae Teeth
• Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's Views and Works
• Aspects, Importance and Issues of Biodiversity
• Hypocalcemia in Large and Small Animals
• Bio Diversity and Future of Our World
• Mescaline Peyote: Origins, Effects, and Uses
• The Diffusion of a Cell

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, the power of a positive human–animal relationship for animal welfare.

• 1 Institute of Animal Welfare Science, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
• 2 Unité Mixte de Recherche sur les Herbivores, Université Clermont Auvergne, INRA, VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
• 3 Animal Welfare Science Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Domestic animals often seek and enjoy interacting with humans. Positive human–animal relationships can elicit positive emotions and other positive welfare outcomes. Nevertheless, our understanding of the underlying processes that govern the positive perception of humans by animals is incomplete. We cover the potential mechanisms involved in the development and maintenance of positive human–animal relationships from the perspective of the animal. This encompasses habituation, associative learning, and possibly attachment or bonding based on communication and social cognition. We review the indicators from the literature to assess a positive human–animal relationship. We operationally define this positive relationship as the animal showing voluntary approach and spatial proximity (seeking) and signs of anticipation, pleasure, relaxation, or other indicators of a rewarding experience from interacting with the human. For research, we recommend accounting for the baseline human–animal relationship in the animal's everyday life, and incorporating a control treatment rather than only comparing positive to negative interaction treatments. Furthermore, animal characteristics, such as previous experience, genetics, and individual predisposition, as well as contextual characteristics related to the social and physical environment, may modulate the perception of humans by animals. The human–animal relationship is also influenced by human characteristics, such as the person's familiarity to the animal, attitudes, skills, and knowledge. We highlight implications for current practices and suggest simple solutions, such as paying attention to the animal's behavioral response to humans and providing choice and control to the animal in terms of when and how to interact with humans. Practical applications to achieve a positive perception of humans could be better utilized, such as by incorporating training principles, while keeping in mind trust and safety of both partners. Overall, there is growing evidence in the scientific literature that a positive human–animal relationship can bring intrinsic rewards to the animals and thereby benefit animal welfare. Further research is needed on the underlying processes to establish an effective positive human–animal relationship, especially in regard to the type, frequency, and length of human interaction necessary. In particular, the importance of providing animals with a sense of agency over their interactions with humans remains poorly understood.

Introduction

The human–animal relationship (HAR) is an important determinant of animal welfare ( 1 – 3 ). Numerous studies have demonstrated the detrimental effects of a negative HAR on animal and human welfare, that is, productivity, companionship, health ( 4 ). A negative HAR can impair animal welfare with negative consequences on the animal's productivity, health, and welfare, primarily through fear as an underlying mechanism ( 1 , 5 ). In comparison, the benefits of a positive HAR for animal welfare are poorly understood and appreciated. Domestic animals often seek and enjoy interacting with humans, beyond depending on humans for food ( 6 – 9 ). Animals may perceive interacting with humans per se as rewarding ( 5 , 10 , 11 ).

This review compiles the recent knowledge of the welfare benefits for animals of interacting positively with humans and provides recommendations to assess and utilize a positive HAR. We focus on the HAR from the perspective of the non-human animal (hereby referred to as “animal”) unless stated otherwise. For the HAR from the human's perspective, we refer the readers to other reviews ( 5 , 12 , 13 ). We restrict the scope of this article to domesticated species, primarily farm and companion animals, because they have been (and still are) selected over thousands of years with a major influence on their response to humans ( 9 , 14 ), and most domestic animals experience frequent interactions with humans. Notwithstanding, animals from other species are also able to develop positive relationships with humans, for instance, animals kept in zoos ( 1 , 15 , 16 ) or laboratories ( 17 , 18 ), and therefore examples on these species are included where relevant.

Mechanisms for the Formation of a Positive HAR

Definitions.

A positive HAR can be defined conceptually based on a positive perception by the animal of the human. Because perception is challenging to assess practically, a positive HAR can be defined operationally in that the animal shows voluntary approach and spatial proximity (seeking) and signs of anticipation, pleasure, relaxation, or other indicators of a rewarding experience arising from interacting with the human. Fear of humans prevents a positive perception of humans, but low or no fear is in itself not a sufficient condition. A positive HAR brings beneficial short-term [e.g., positive emotions ( 19 )] and long-term [e.g., stress resilience ( 20 )] welfare outcomes for the animal when or after interacting with the human (see section Implications for Practice).

Habituation

HARs are most often referred to in the context of fear of humans ( 21 ), although positive HARs have received increased attention recently ( 1 – 3 , 22 , 23 ). This questions whether a positive HAR can be understood, as for negative HAR, solely as a consequence of a reduction in the fear response to humans or an absence of fear. When a stimulus is unfamiliar, fear is usually the default response. Fear of humans can be reduced through habituation, defined as a reduction in response resulting from repeated exposure to a stimulus ( 24 ). Although it can reduce fear of humans by leading to a neutral response, habituation is insufficient to reach a positive HAR. This non-associative learning process can occur by direct exposure, but also be facilitated or inhibited by social learning or transmission from the dam or other animals ( 25 , 26 ).

Interactions vs. Relationship

The formation of a relationship is a progressive process, reinforced upon subsequent interactions. This highlights the difference between an interaction and a relationship based on a single vs. multiple events between two individuals, respectively ( 27 ), with a relationship developing on the basis that animals are able to memorize and predict future interactions with humans ( 28 , 29 ). We focus on the relationship rather than interactions because the HAR is more relevant for welfare because of its long-lasting and integrative nature (i.e., comprising past interactions, present, and predicting future ones). Of course, there is a link between interactions and the resulting relationship. In particular, the formation of a positive HAR may be jeopardized by negative interactions, even when the occurrence of positive interactions far outweighs negative interactions ( 30 ). However, a strong or high-quality HAR may endure deviation from positive interactions or be more resilient to aversive events ( 31 , 32 ). The time at which a relationship is formed remains difficult to determine, but it can be defined as the time at which the animal forms expectations of its interaction with humans.

Associative Learning

Associative learning can accelerate the formation of a relationship, by the animal associating humans with positive aspects either through classical conditioning (the human presence itself or its concurrent association with a positive event) or operant conditioning (interacting with the human leads to positive consequences). A positive HAR can be established by human contact that is inherently rewarding such as through stroking or brushing [dog ( 33 ), sheep ( 6 , 7 ), cattle ( 11 , 34 , 35 ), pig ( 36 , 37 )] or play interactions [dog ( 38 ), cat ( 39 )]. However, not all individuals react in the same manner to putative positive interactions. For example, previous interactions affect the way animals perceived human contact [pig ( 32 , 40 )], supporting a role for ontogeny. Furthermore, animals from different genetic origins can also perceive stroking by humans differently [dog ( 9 ), sheep ( 41 )], supporting a role for phylogeny. The role of potential modulating factors such as individual differences (e.g., personality) and affective states should be investigated further. It should be noted that a positive HAR cannot simply be explained by food or other resources provided by humans, although food can facilitate the development of a positive HAR [sheep ( 7 ), cow ( 42 ), pig ( 8 ), cat ( 39 )].

In addition to associative learning processes, a number of phenomena have been proposed to explain the formation of a positive HAR, in particular aspects relevant to social bonding and related constructs. Familiarity with a human does not necessarily equate to a positive HAR, although it may be conducive to it given that repeated non-aversive exposure can facilitate positive appraisal [“the mere exposure” effect ( 43 )]. The attachment theory has been used in the context of the HAR ( 26 ), originating from the study of infant–parent relationships and defined as an affectional bond binding the individuals together in space and enduring over time ( 44 ). Without any obvious reinforcement, and because animals need to feel safe and have a basis from which they can explore their world, attachment can occur with familiar individuals such as the mother, peers, other conspecifics, and even individuals from other species such as humans ( 26 ). These animals calm quickly after a short period of social isolation when in the presence of a familiar human [dog ( 33 , 45 ), cat ( 46 ), hand-reared lamb ( 26 , 47 ), pig ( 48 )]. The socialization process ( 49 , 50 ) may also play a role in the context of the HAR, through learning how to behave toward others. Indeed, a successful relationship encompasses both the intent by the animal and the human to interact, as well as competent social skills relying on sociocognitive and communicative abilities (see other contributions in this Special Issue).

Assessment of a Positive Human-Animal Relationship

The HAR can be observed either through observations of spontaneous interactions (i.e., without interference) or through stimulus-evoked situations and tests that investigate the HAR in a more systematic way.

A number of biological changes can occur before, during, and/or after interactions with humans ( Table 1 ). Most of these indicators are based on features of the interactions, indirectly reflecting the HAR. Some indicators can distinguish different qualities of the relationship (e.g., evaluate which animals have a better relationship than others), but it is generally difficult to set a threshold where a positive HAR starts, apart from some indicators that clearly reflect a positive HAR. The assessment of a positive HAR requires a holistic analysis, given that several indicators need to be considered together for a full understanding. Care is required in assessing a positive HAR because, for example, the motivation to interact with humans may at the time be conflicting with other motivations, and some indicators of a positive HAR are species-specific.

Table 1 . List of indicators of a positive human–animal relationship.

Behavioral Changes

We describe here in a typical chronological order the behavioral changes associated with a positive HAR and their specificity to a positive HAR.

The animal can show signs of anticipation before the interaction takes place in cases when the human interaction is predictable or environmental cues signal the arrival of a human. These could be considered “appetitive” signs, such as pacing, vocalizations, or increased behavioral transitions ( 83 ). For example, captive Bottlenose dolphins anticipated interactions with humans, through increased surface looking and spy hopping, and these anticipatory behaviors correlated with their subsequent level of engagement in the interaction ( 84 ). These anticipatory signals can nevertheless be ambiguous indicators, as either indicative of positive (excitement) or negative (frustration, for instance, if the delay is too long) states depending on the situation ( 83 ).

The first reaction of an animal to the arrival of a human in its environment is an orientation response. The animal typically turns its attention toward the human, possibly using various senses other than vision. The orientation response indicates that the animal notices the presence of the human but is not in itself an indicator of the quality of the HAR because of its potential ambiguous underlying motivations reflecting either a positive (e.g., interest) or negative (e.g., vigilance) state. However, head, ear, and body posture or movement and accompanying behaviors may help to distinguish at least between a negative HAR and a neutral to positive HAR; for example, in cattle, head stays in normal position and ears not erected or even hanging loosely while looking toward the person and ongoing rumination.

Once the human enters the animal's environment, the latency to approach, in the form of voluntary seeking behavior of the animal, is generally an indicator of a positive HAR and/or curiosity. Approach is context-specific (e.g., novelty of the situation and stimulus) and species-specific and therefore should be used with other indicators. However, a lack of approach does not preclude a positive HAR but may just indicate low motivation for (physical) interaction at this time ( 68 ); this especially accounts for situations in the home environment where many distractions or competing motivations may occur (e.g., feeding, resting). In many cases, spatial proximity is also a sensitive indicator of a positive HAR, for instance, reflected by the duration of time spent near a human ( 30 , 51 ).

The number or duration of interactions initiated by the animal is often used as an indicator of the quality of the HAR. Although a quantifiable metric, it does not necessarily reflect the relationship because the animal may modulate the interaction with the human according to its needs; for instance, the animal may want to interact more if it is distressed, may not have interacted for some time, or conversely may not be interested at that time in interacting ( 68 ). In this regard, further research is required on refined indicators of interactions ( 85 ), such as by studying the complementarity, reciprocity, and synchrony of behavioral exchanges that have been shown to be important in the quality of parent–infant interactions ( 70 ). For instance, behavioral synchrony has been shown to be linked to affiliation in humans ( 86 ), and locomotor synchrony has been observed between dogs and their owners ( 69 ). Further, dogs with lower initial oxytocin levels received more stroking from their owner ( 87 ), demonstrating the dynamic interplay of the HAR.

The type of behaviors and body posture displayed during approach and contact with humans, reflecting the animal's level of engagement in the interaction, can provide information regarding the perception and motivation of the animal. In particular, solicitation behaviors such as species-specific grooming solicitation postures and other types of physical solicitation for contact such as touching, nudging, scratching the human with the paw, or vocalizations are indicators of the animal's motivation to engage and can be interpreted as clear signs of a positive perception of the human. Animals may also expose body areas where they wish to be stroked, for example, the ventral neck area in cattle ( 35 , 52 ), the abdominal area in pigs ( 37 ), or the back rather than the head region in dogs ( 65 ). These types of behavioral responses, exposing often vulnerable body region, may be interpreted as involving a level of trust reflecting a positive HAR, although some behaviors such as lying with the belly exposed may also indicate submission in dogs, for instance, and therefore do not necessarily indicate a positive HAR. In most cases, these behaviors are similar to those shown during intraspecific sociopositive interactions, although there are some interspecies specific behaviors [e.g., dog vs. wolf ( 88 )].

The response of the animal in the presence of the human is obviously a key indicator of a positive HAR. A lack of avoidance response to humans is usually indicative of low fear of humans ( 22 ). Ear position changes or positions (forward vs. side or backward, or erected vs. hanging) have been used to interpret the valence of human contact [sheep ( 53 , 54 ), cow ( 52 , 55 , 56 ), dog ( 57 ), horse ( 58 )], and recent work investigated more subtle changes in facial expression [cat ( 60 ), parrot ( 61 )]. Tail wagging in dogs is often cited as an indicator of enjoyment, but it may be a sign of arousal rather than specifically positive valence ( 59 ). In some species, some vocalizations are often associated with positive interactions, for instance, purring in cats ( 46 ). A rapid reduction in distress vocalizations and increased proximity seeking toward humans can also be interpreted as a positive perception of human presence [goat ( 75 , 76 ), hand-reared sheep ( 47 , 51 )]. Redirected or displacement behaviors [e.g., in dogs yawning, lip- or muzzle-licking, and looking away or toward the ceiling ( 89 )] may be negative indicators, reflecting a reluctance to interact or conflicting motivations. Similarly, pigs that were used to stroking or scratching expressed more high-pitched vocalizations when the handler did not provide gentle tactile contact, which the authors interpreted as indicators of stress possibly resulting from frustration due to the fact that the previously-handled piglets expected positive human contact ( 90 ).

Finally, qualitative behavior assessment in which human observers rank the bodily expression of the animals using word descriptors ( 91 ) seems promising as a holistic approach for differentiating HAR ( 62 ).

Behavioral changes to assess a positive HAR may be species-, individual-, and context-specific (see section Implications for Practice). In particular, the way the human and the animal initiate the contact or interact appear as important modulators of these changes [pig ( 92 ), dog ( 65 , 66 , 78 , 87 )].

Physiological Changes

In addition to behavioral changes, studies have also shown a wide array of physiological changes linked to human–animal interactions ( 93 ).

Oxytocin, in particular, has attracted a lot of attention for its link to social processes. Positive interactions, in particular with familiar humans, generally raise oxytocin concentration [reviewed in ( 77 )]. The relationship between positive HAR and changes in oxytocin concentrations is nevertheless complex and not fully understood [dog ( 66 , 67 , 79 , 87 ); sheep ( 94 ); domestic species ( 77 ); dairy cattle, pig, goat ( 95 )].

Cortisol concentration also changes following positive interactions, with the direction of change reflecting either excitement [dog ( 79 )] or conversely relaxation [dog ( 66 )], and change in cortisol concentration is time- and context-dependent.

Heart rate and heart rate variability measures provide dynamic information on activation of the autonomic response. In general, studies show a reduced heart rate and an increase in measures of parasympathetic activation (e.g., high frequency, or greater root mean square of successive differences) during or after interacting positively with a human [sheep ( 54 ); dog ( 78 , 79 )], partly dependent on the body region of grooming [horse ( 96 ); cow ( 52 )] or the type of interactions ( 97 ).

Finally, the involvement of other physiological changes, especially neurotransmitters such as opioids and dopamine and immune parameters, such as immunoglobulin-A require further research. In fact, positive interactions induce an array of physiological and immune changes in both humans and animals ( 93 ), and -omics approaches [e.g., transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics ( 98 )] could be useful to decipher the biological pathways modulated by positive HAR and its effects on health. For instance, rabbits that received regular positive human contact showed lower incidence of atherosclerosis ( 99 ). Gently handled chickens had a higher immune response and disease resistance ( 100 ), and mere regular visual contact with humans increased the antibody response to Newcastle disease vaccine and reduced heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratio following capture and restraint later in life ( 101 ).

Cognitive and Neurobiological Effects

Few studies have focused on the cognitive and neurobiological changes induced by a positive HAR. Cognitive bias tasks have recently been popular as an indirect assessment of emotional states by studying affect-related cognitive changes ( 102 ). In rats, tickling by a human induces a more positive judgment of ambiguous cues, suggesting that it induces a positive emotional state ( 80 ). Similarly, piglets that experienced positive human contact judged ambiguous cues more positively ( 40 ). Conversely, dogs show a more negative judgment of ambiguous cues after being left alone ( 103 ). Whether a positive HAR leads to positive emotional states requires further research.

Other approaches have relied on the animal's memory of humans. Pigs can remember positive interactions with humans for at least 5 weeks ( 32 ). Horses that were trained using positive reinforcement training with positive human interactions remembered the human 6 months later and spent more time close to the familiar human ( 63 ). Sheep can be trained to discriminate sheep and human faces ( 104 ) and remember those faces for over 2 years ( 28 ), and sheep also recognize their familiar caretaker without any pretraining ( 64 ). These findings support that a positive HAR can be long-lasting.

Finally, neurobiological studies of positive HAR are still in the early stage with the use of, for instance, functional near-infrared spectroscopy [dog ( 81 )], electroencephalography [pig ( 37 )], or postmortem brain measures [sheep ( 82 )]. Our understanding of the neuroscience of human–animal interactions could progress with new techniques such as neuroimaging [dog ( 105 )], allowing non-invasive longitudinal neurobiological studies.

Postinteraction Changes

Most studies have focused on studying those biological changes when or around the time a human is present. There are also a number of changes that can occur following positive human–animal interactions, that is, at other times than when the animal and human interact. These can be indicative of positive (relaxation or “postconsummatory”) or negative (e.g., separation distress, searching behavior) effects. These effects that outlast the interaction per se are often overlooked as compared to the changes occurring during the interaction. Indices of relaxation include hanging ear posture [cattle ( 55 )], lower heart rate [dog ( 71 )], greater parasympathetic activity [various species ( 72 )], elevated brain oxytocin concentration [pig ( 73 )], and shorter latency to rest or better sleep quality [dog ( 74 )].

There can also be indicators of attempts to restore contact, for example, after interruption of an interaction, as evidenced by signs of separation distress or searching behavior [dog ( 45 ); hand-reared sheep ( 47 )]. Although these may be signs of distress and negative emotional states, searching behavior and separation distress when an interaction is disrupted are nevertheless signs of a positive HAR.

Further research is warranted on whether a positive HAR can induce baseline biological changes on an animal, for example, changes to its time-budget outside of the interactive sessions with humans. For instance, gentle human interactions during milking or rearing can lead to fewer aggressive interactions between dairy cows once they return to the herd ( 106 ) and lower adrenocortical activity in calves ( 107 ). Similarly, flocks of gently handled chickens showed fewer agonistic interactions ( 108 ).

Epistemiological Considerations for the Investigation of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship

Motivation and preference tests can be used to assess the HAR ( 22 ). They can provide insight into the animal's perception ( 109 ), by testing animals on what they find positively and negatively reinforcing; what they want or do not want and how much they value the stimulus. Nevertheless, preferences and motivation may vary with the time of day, environmental conditions, the animal's previous experience, and the current condition and familiarity with the options under study ( 110 ), requiring careful interpretation.

The most common tests used for HAR assessment have been the stationary/passive human test, approaching/active human test, and tests involving separation from a human [reviewed in ( 22 )]. We cover below various aspects of the development and use of tests to specifically assess a positive HAR.

An animal voluntarily approaching and interacting (non-aggressively) with a human is a prime indicator of a positive HAR. This is nonetheless not sufficient to qualify as a specific positive HAR indicator because the animal may approach and interact because of curiosity or a motivation to explore. The motivation to explore may also be initially affected by how fear-provoking the situation is. Conversely, the lack of approach is not sufficiently conclusive to reject a positive HAR due to potentially conflicting motivations and a momentary lack of motivation for interaction.

Tests based on avoidance responses (e.g., distance of withdrawal by the animal from an approaching human) are often used to measure the fear dimension of the HAR. However, acceptance of approach and subsequent touch and stroking by a human are clear indicators of a positive HAR and can be more sensitive in differentiating the quality of HAR than approach behavior toward a stationary person [pig ( 36 , 92 ), cattle ( 35 , 68 , 111 )]. The sensitivity of the tests nevertheless depends on the species tested and contextual features ( 22 ), as well as phenomena such as generalization of the response toward unfamiliar humans.

Situations where there is a lack of control offered to the animal because the animal is restrained or limited to a constrained space or when contact is imposed on the animal without the possibility for the animal to avoid or withdraw may influence the validity of the HAR assessment. Nevertheless, the few studies to date comparing restrained and unrestrained animals showed relatively similar responses to humans ( 68 , 112 , 113 ). Standardized interactions by the humans, such as imposing contact on the animal or using highly standardized interactive features (e.g., predetermined interaction in terms of bout frequency or duration) are commonly used in research settings as they provide experimental control. However, free-choice interactions may replicate real-life situations more faithfully because control over the situation may be linked to the perception of the situation, although this hypothesis remains to be tested. It may be important that the animal is provided with a sense of control or agency ( 114 ) by free-choice approach about when and how to interact ( 61 , 78 ). This is similar to the case for second-person neuroscience ( 85 ) that emphasizes the need to look at situations of active social engagement and reciprocal behaviors, rather than passive observation or being subjected to a situation with a lack of agency. This argument is based on the fact that an interaction typically involves active participation from both agents.

The test should be conducted in an appropriate environment. Animals have been most often tested individually, which may not reflect their typical reaction when in their social group. Furthermore, testing environments have most often been barren, offering few choices other than interacting with the human. Hence, this questions the specificity and validity of the animal's response toward the human as an indicator of a positive HAR in cases where there is a lack of choice ( 110 ).

The experience of the animal with humans is obviously crucial to consider, as additional positive interaction treatments may fail to show additional effects if the HAR is already positive ( 107 , 115 ). Hence, it is important to assess the “baseline” HAR in the animal's real-life environment (i.e., outside of the experimental treatments) and take into account the ratio of negative and positive human contact ( 106 ).

Many studies, to date, compared positive and negative human interaction treatments, but lacked a control treatment [e.g., ( 73 , 74 , 116 )]. This control treatment usually consists of minimal human contact involved in routine care and management ( 117 ), or human present with no active interactions ( 52 ). It is crucial to demonstrate that the HAR is specifically positive, rather than neutral. If comparing only positive and negative interactions without a control treatment, a potential difference may be induced by negative treatment effects without being able to distinguish them from the positive treatment effects.

As mentioned earlier, more detailed analysis of the interaction could assist in assessing the quality of the HAR, for instance, based on the synchrony between partners ( 69 ), or the functional complementarity of the exchange and/or responsiveness using similar approaches to those used in humans ( 70 ).

Implications for Practice

Developing and cultivating a positive human–animal relationship: how.

The HAR is a dynamic and reciprocal process modulated by individual and contextual features. An understanding of its development and regulatory mechanisms provides practical opportunities to develop and maintain a positive HAR for animal caretakers.

Gentle handling is particularly effective [sheep ( 6 ), pig ( 32 , 92 ), ostrich ( 118 )], although passive human presence may be required initially to habituate the animal [pig ( 36 )]. Note that some species may not need physical contact, and visual contact may be sufficient [e.g., poultry ( 119 , 120 )], although the need for and type of contact are strongly species-dependent. Positive interactions involve several species-specific sensory channels: tactile, visual, auditory, and olfactory, and are often multimodal [dairy cow ( 121 ), sheep ( 82 ), pig ( 23 )]. In many species, brief (from 15 s to a few minutes) opportunities to interact with humans over days or several weeks are sufficient to reduce the animal's fear of humans and encourage approach and interaction [dog ( 33 ), horse ( 122 ), cattle ( 123 ), pig ( 92 , 124 ), poultry ( 120 )], suggesting that a positive HAR from the perspective of the animal can develop rapidly. Studies examining tickling of rats on positive affective states have demonstrated the importance of the dosage and characteristics of this technique ( 125 ). Further research is needed to determine the minimal “dose” of human contact required to form a positive HAR in terms of type, frequency, and duration of interaction.

Incorporating training principles, primarily through the use of positive reinforcement, has been broadly and successfully used in practice for zoo and companion animals to improve handling by reducing the aversiveness of some procedures [dog ( 126 ), cat ( 127 ), horse ( 63 ), primates ( 128 )]. Training is not yet commonly used in farm settings despite proof of its effectiveness in research settings [pig ( 129 , 130 ), sheep ( 131 ), cattle]. Given that human contact per se can be perceived as inherently rewarding, it could be used as a reward during training (e.g., stroking, brushing, playing), although food rewards may facilitate this process.

It may be easier to develop a HAR with young animals [dog ( 132 ), pig ( 124 )] because they may had fewer negative experiences with humans, have greater learning ability ( 133 ) and higher levels of curiosity and exploration ( 26 , 50 ) than adult animals. In particular, the development of a HAR may be most effective during sensitive periods for socialization such as during early life ( 49 ) or socially stressful periods such as after weaning ( 134 ). Social facilitation, building on the transmission of the HAR with the dam or other conspecifics, can also be effective [horse ( 135 ), sheep ( 26 ), pig ( 136 )]. There is even evidence of transgenerational transmission of positive HAR, as human contact altered mother quails' egg physiological environment and led to less emotionally reactive offspring ( 137 ).

Familiarity and previous experience with humans can influence the HAR. Nevertheless, if the animal's experience with familiar humans is mainly positive, domestic animals can generalize their positive response toward unfamiliar humans [sheep ( 138 – 140 ), dog ( 141 , 142 ), pig ( 8 , 10 , 36 ), horse ( 143 ), cattle ( 34 )], although the animal may still prefer familiar over unfamiliar humans [sheep ( 116 )]. Generalization of the HAR to unfamiliar humans depends not only on past experiences but also familiarity of the context such as the behavior or other characteristics of the human and the location [cattle ( 42 , 144 , 145 ), pig ( 32 , 36 , 90 , 146 )], which may affect the motivation to approach and remain near an unfamiliar human. As such, a positive HAR is not necessarily limited to a personalized one, that is, toward a specific human.

It is important to keep in mind the potential modulating effects on the HAR due to genetics and species differences [fox ( 147 ), dog ( 9 ), sheep ( 41 )], individual differences [dog ( 78 )], previous experience and age [pig ( 32 , 36 )], social context [cattle ( 148 ), sheep ( 26 ), pig ( 136 )], and other context-specific aspects.

In addition, the attitudes, skills, and knowledge of humans influence their behavior toward animals and in turn the animal's perception of humans ( 1 , 5 ). Although beyond the scope of this article, these human factors should be considered when thinking of the HAR. There is also increasing evidence that animals can recognize human facial expression of emotions [dog ( 149 – 151 ), horse ( 152 ), goat ( 153 )] or human bodily expression [cat ( 154 )] and prefer positive human emotional expressions.

The predictability of the interaction can strongly affect the animal's response to humans [pig ( 30 ), beef cattle ( 144 ), sheep ( 116 ), dog ( 155 )], because as mentioned previously the relationship is based on the animal's expectation of its interaction with humans. The HAR concept implies the predictability of human–animal interactions. In addition, the provision of choice and control available to the animal in terms of when and how to interact appears to be important [dog ( 79 ), pig ( 92 ), cattle ( 11 )].

A key aspect for the human is to pay attention to the animal's response to humans. A positive HAR can be assessed based on behavioral observations as highlighted previously (see section Assessment of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship), and as such it is feasible to cultivate a positive HAR in practice based on this knowledge and without the need for specific equipment.

The Benefits of a Positive HAR: Why?

The HAR can have important and long-lasting effects on the welfare of animals, and this relationship is often critical to the domestic animals' role, for example, animal productivity and ease of handling and management, as well as companionship and satisfaction for the human. Evidence is accumulating on the potential welfare benefits of a positive HAR ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . The different dimensions of a positive human–animal relationship for the animal. The arrows symbolize the interactions between the animal and the human.

There are benefits of a positive HAR on stress resilience. For example, offering positive interactions to shelter dogs can reduce their cortisol level ( 156 ) and combined with training increases adoptability ( 157 ). Walking and stroking shelter dogs for 15 min once a week for 6 weeks increased the time they spent visible from the front of the pen and tail wagging ( 158 ). Only three 10-min bouts of handling was sufficient for shelter dogs to show a preference for the handler ( 33 ). Five minutes of weekly brushing dairy heifers facilitated their acclimation to the milking routine ( 123 ). Five seconds of back scratching of sows for 1 week prior to farrowing reduced piglet mortality in sows ( 159 ), although this stroking treatment was confounded with music from a radio. These examples indicate that brief positive interactions with humans can benefit animal management and animal welfare.

A positive HAR can also buffer aversive procedures where humans are involved such as veterinary inspections or management interventions [sheep ( 131 ), pig ( 129 ), cow ( 160 ), ostrich ( 118 )], presumably by removing human-related stress-eliciting components. In addition, humans can provide social support to animals during stressful times, especially for animals kept in suboptimal social environment [pig ( 161 ), sheep ( 47 ), chimpanzee ( 17 )]. Stroking by the owner calms the behavioral and heart rate responses of dogs to subsequent separation ( 71 ). The effectiveness of providing social support can be modulated by the quality of the HAR [dog ( 66 , 162 )].

As an enrichment strategy, positive interactions with humans present several advantages as they usually occur daily and can be combined with routine checks, can be manipulated for their predictability to minimize habituation, and do not require additional resources (e.g., material). For example, orangutans preferred to stay in the part of their zoo enclosure where they can be close to and observe visitors ( 163 ), suggesting that interactions with humans may be enriching for them.

There is limited direct evidence to date that a positive HAR stimulates positive affective states in domestic animals ( 19 ). Tickling of rats ( 80 ) or gentle contact of pigs ( 40 ) by humans induces more positive judgment of ambiguous cues, suggestive of a positive emotional state. Positive or negative human interactions influence the sleeping patterns of dogs ( 74 ), although in the absence of a control treatment it remains to be determined whether this was the result of the positive or negative interactions.

Developing a positive HAR provides benefits in the long term. The persistence of the effect of early positive human contacts [5–16 weeks, pig ( 32 , 124 ); 6 months, dairy cattle ( 11 ); 6–8 months, beef cattle ( 134 ); 24 months ( 164 ); 8 months, goat ( 76 ); 25 months, ( 165 ); 6–8 months, horse ( 63 )] makes it an intervention with potentially long-lasting effects. Nevertheless, there may also be risks or disadvantages of a positive HAR. For example, pigs that experienced positive human interactions can be difficult to handle in familiar locations because of low fear of humans ( 166 ); however, pigs that are fearful of both humans and the unfamiliar handling location take longer to move and balk more than pigs that have experienced positive human interactions ( 146 ), suggesting an interplay between the HAR and the familiarity of the environment. It is also important to keep in mind trust and safety of both partners, because animals with low fear of humans can be dangerous, especially in case of inappropriate human behavior as it is often the case in dog bites of children ( 155 ) or during risky or potentially aversive procedures that involve close contact or handling [horse ( 25 ), dairy cow ( 121 , 167 )]. In order to be able to both manage the animals in a practicable manner and minimize the risks of aggression or injuries, a positive HAR may benefit from settings boundaries such as respecting a safe distance and avoiding potentially dangerous interactions. Social animals usually learn to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable social behaviors during their development as part of the socialization process and the development of their social skills, and this socialization process may also affect the animal's behavior toward humans.

Hence, a positive HAR can provide animals with positive welfare outcomes ( 20 , 168 ), such as greater stress resilience, social support, environmental enrichment, possibly positive affective states, as well as benefits to their role for humans.

Conclusions

Positive experiences with humans lead to domestic animals seeking and interacting with humans. Consequently, a positive HAR can bring intrinsic rewards to the animal. It can be used to elicit positive emotions and other positive welfare outcomes. Nevertheless, our understanding of the underlying processes that govern the positive perception of humans by animals is incomplete and will benefit from further research, especially in regard to the type, frequency, and length of human interaction necessary to establish an effective positive HAR. In particular, the importance of providing animals with a sense of agency and its effect on the HAR remains poorly understood. Further research is needed to identify how much changes in features of interaction reflect the quality of the relationship.

Author Contributions

J-LR wrote the first draft of the manuscript and drafted Table 1 . XB drafted Figure 1 . SW, XB, and PH edited the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the0 final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

1. Hemsworth PH, Sherwen SL, Coleman GJ. Human contact. In: Appleby M, editor. Animal Welfare. Wallingford: CAB International (2018). p. 294–314.

Google Scholar

2. Waiblinger S. Agricultural animals. In: Hosey G, Melfi V, editors. Anthrozoology: Human–Animal Interactions in Domesticated and Wild Animals . Oxford: Oxford University Press (2019), p. 32–58.

3. Boivin X. Animal experience of domestication. In: Butterworth A, editor. Animal Welfare in a Changing World. Wallingford: CABI (2018). p. 154–61.

4. Pinillos RG, Appleby MC, Manteca X, Scott-Park F, Smith C, Velarde A. One welfare—a platform for improving human and animal welfare. Vet Rec. (2016) 179:412–13. doi: 10.1136/vr.i5470

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ. Human-Livestock Interactions: The Stockperson and The Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals . Wallingford: CABI. (2011).

6. Tallet C, Veissier I, Boivin X. Human contact and feeding as rewards for the lamb's affinity to their stockperson. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2005) 94:59–73. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.02.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Tallet C, Veissier I, Boivin X. How does the method used to feed lambs modulate their affinity to their human caregiver? Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 119:56–65. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.03.012

8. Hemsworth PH, Verge J, Coleman GJ. Conditioned approach-avoidance responses to humans: the ability of pigs to associate feeding and aversive social experiences in the presence of humans with humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1996) 50:71–82. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(96)01065-9

9. Lazzaroni M, Range F, Backes J, Portele K, Scheck K, Marshall-Pescini S. The effect of domestication and experience on the social interaction of dogs and wolves with a human companion. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:785. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00785

10. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Campbell RG. A study of the relative aversiveness of a new daily injection procedure for pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1996) 49:389–401. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(96)01060-X

11. Bertenshaw CE, Rowlinson P. Exploring heifers' perception of ‘positive’ treatment through their motivation to pursue a retreated human. Anim Welfare. (2008) 17:313–9.

12. Friedman E, Krause-Parello CA. Companion animals and human health: benefits, challenges, and the road ahead for human-animal interaction. Rev Sci Tech. (2018) 37:71–82. doi: 10.20506/rst.37.1.2741

13. McCune S, McCardle P, Griffin JA, Esposito L, Hurley K, Bures R, et al. Editorial: human-animal interaction (hai) research: a decade of progress. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:44. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00044

14. Price EO. Behavioral development in animals undergoing domestication. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1999) 65:245–71. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00087-8

15. Claxton AM. The potential of the human–animal relationship as an environmental enrichment for the welfare of zoo-housed animals. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2011) 133:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.002

16. Hosey G, Melfi V. Human-animal interactions, relationships and bonds: a review and analysis of the literature. Int J Comp Psychol. (2014) 27:117–42.

17. Baker KC. Benefits of positive human interaction for socially-housed chimpanzees. Anim Welfare. (2004) 13:239–45.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

18. LaFollette MR, Riley MC, Cloutier S, Brady CM, O'Haire ME, Gaskill BN. Laboratory animal welfare meets human welfare: a cross-sectional study of professional quality of life, including compassion fatigue in laboratory animal personnel. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:114. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00114

19. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, et al. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare. Physiol Behav. (2007) 92:375–97. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003

20. Rault J-L, Hintze S, Camerlink I, Yee JR. Positive welfare and the Like: distinct views and a proposed framework. Front Vet Sci. (2020) 7:370. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00370

21. Rushen J, Taylor AA, de Passillé AM. Domestic animals' fear of humans and its effect on their welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1999) 65:285–303. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00089-1

22. Waiblinger S, Boivin X, Pedersen V, Tosi M-V, Janczak AM, Visser EK, et al. Assessing the human–animal relationship in farmed species: a critical review. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2006) 101:185–242. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.001

23. Tallet C, Brajon S, Devillers N, Lensink J. Pig-human interactions: creating a positive perception of humans to ensure pig welfare. In: Spinka M, editor. Advances in Pig Welfare . Duxford: Woodhead Publishing (2018). p. 381–93.

24. Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J, et al. Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learning Mem. (2009) 92:135–38. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.09.012

25. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human–horse relationship. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2008) 109:1–24. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015

26. Nowak R, Boivin X. Filial attachment in sheep: similarities and differences between ewe-lamb and human-lamb relationships. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2015) 164:12–28. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.09.013

27. Hinde RA. Interactions, relationships and social structure. Man. (1976) 11:1–17. doi: 10.2307/2800384

28. Kendrick KM, da Costa AP, Leigh AE, Hinton MR, Peirce JW. Sheep don't forget a face. Nature. (2001) 414:165–6. doi: 10.1038/35102669

29. Boivin X, Lensink J, Tallet C, Veissier I. Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Anim Welfare. (2003) 12:479–92.

30. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Hansen C. The influence of inconsistent handling by humans on the behaviour, growth and corticosteroids of young pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1987) 17:245–52. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(87)90149-3

31. Schmied C, Boivin X, Scala S, Waiblinger S. Effect of previous stroking on reactions to a veterinary procedure: behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows. Interact Stud. (2010) 11:467–81. doi: 10.1075/is.11.3.08sch

32. Brajon S, Laforest J-P, Bergeron R, Tallet C, Hötzel M-J, Devillers N. Persistency of the piglet's reactivity to the handler following a previous positive or negative experience. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2015) 162:9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.11.009

33. Gácsi M, Topál J, Miklósi Á, Dóka A, Csányi V. Attachment behavior of adult dogs (Canis familiaris) living at rescue centers: forming new bonds. J Comparat Psychol. (2001) 115:423–31. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.115.4.423

34. Lensink BJ, Boivin X, Pradel P, Le Neindre P, Veissier I. Reducing veal calves' reactivity to people by providing additional human contact. J Anim Sci . (2000) 78:1213–8. doi: 10.2527/2000.7851213x

35. Schmied C, Boivin X, Waiblinger S. Stroking different body regions of dairy cows: effects on avoidance and approach behavior toward humans. J Dairy Sci. (2008) 91:596–05. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0360

36. Brajon S, Laforest J-P, Bergeron R, Tallet C, Devillers N. The perception of humans by piglets: recognition of familiar handlers and generalisation to unfamiliar humans. Anim Cogn. (2015) 18:1299–316. doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0900-2

37. Rault J-L, Truong S, Hemsworth L, Le Chevoir M, Bauquier S, Lai A. Gentle abdominal stroking (belly rubbing) of pigs by a human reduces EEG total power and increases EEG frequencies. Behav Brain Res. (2019) 374:111892. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2019.04.006

38. Jerolmack C. Humans, animals, and play: theorizing interaction when intersubjectivity is problematic. Sociol Theor. (2009) 27:371–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01353.x

39. Karsh EB, Turner DC. The human-cat relationship. In: Turner DC, Bateson P, editors. The Domestic Cat, The Biology of its Behaviour . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988). p. 159–77.

40. Brajon S, Laforest J-P, Schmitt O, Devillers N. The way humans behave modulates the emotional state of piglets. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0133408. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133408

41. Tamioso PR, Boissy A, Boivin X, Chandèze H, Andanson S, Delval É, et al. Spatial distance and reactivity traits alter the positive perception of brushing by ewes. Animal. (2019) 14:150–60. doi: 10.1017/S1751731119001435

42. Jago JG, Krohn CC, Matthews LR. The influence of feeding and handling on the development of the human–animal interactions in young cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1999) 62:137–51. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00219-6

43. Montoya RM, Horton RS, Vevea JL, Citkowicz M, Lauber EA. A re-examination of the mere exposure effect: the influence of repeated exposure on recognition, familiarity, and liking. Psychol Bull. (2017) 143:459–98. doi: 10.1037/bul0000085

44. Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss , Vol. 1. New York, NY: Basic Books (1969).

45. Prato-Previde E, Custance DM, Spiezio C, Sabatini F. Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth's strange situation. Behaviour. (2003) 140:225–54. doi: 10.1163/156853903321671514

46. Eriksson M, Keeling LJ, Rehn T. Cats and owners interact more with each other after a longer duration of separation. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0185599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185599

47. Rault J-L, Boissy A, Boivin X. Separation distress in artificially-reared lambs depends on human presence and the number of conspecifics. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2011) 132:42–50. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.02.011

48. Villain A, Lanthony M, Guérin C, Nous C, Tallet C. Manipulable object and human contact: preferences and modulation of emotional states in weaned piglets. Front Vet Sci. (this issue). doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.577433

49. Bateson P. How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for? Anim Behav. (1979) 27:470–86. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(79)90184-2

50. Scott JP. The phenomenon of attachment in human-nonhuman relationships. In: Davis H, Balfour D, editors. The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1992).

51. Boivin X, Tournadre H, Le Neindre P. Hand-feeding and gentling influence early-weaned lambs' attachment responses to their stockperson. J Anim Sci. (2000) 78:879–84. doi: 10.2527/2000.784879x

52. Schmied C, Waiblinger S, Scharl T, Leisch F, Boivin X. Stroking of different body regions by a human: effects on behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2008) 109:25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.01.013

53. Reefmann N, Wechsler B, Gygax L. Behavioural and physiological assessment of positive and negative emotion in sheep. Anim Behav. (2009) 78:651–9. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.015

54. Coulon M, Nowak R, Peyrat J, Chandèze H, Boissy A, Boivin X. Do Lambs perceive regular human stroking as pleasant? behavior and heart rate variability analyses. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0118617. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118617

55. Proctor HS, Carder G. Can ear postures reliably measure the positive emotional state of cows? Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2014) 161:20–7. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.09.015

56. Lange A, Franzmayr S, Wisenöcker V, Futschik A, Waiblinger S, Lürzel S. Effects of different stroking styles on behaviour and cardiac parameters in heifers. Animals. (2020) 10:426. doi: 10.3390/ani10030426

57. Tami G, Gallagher A. Description of the behaviour of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) by experienced and inexperienced people. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 120:159–69. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.009

58. Hausberger M, Muller C. A brief note on some possible factors involved in the reactions of horses to humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2002) 76:339–44. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00016-3

59. McGowan RTS, Rehn T, Norling Y, Keeling LJ. Positive affect and learning: exploring the “Eureka Effect” in dogs. Anim Cogn. (2014) 17:577–87. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0688-x

60. Caeiro CC, Burrows AM, Waller BM. Development and application of CatFACS: are human cat adopters influenced by cat facial expressions? Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2017) 189:66–78. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.01.005

61. Bertin A, Beraud A, Lansade L, Blache M-C, Diot A, Mulot B, et al. Facial display and blushing: means of visual communication in blue-and-yellow macaws (Ara Ararauna)? PLoS ONE. (2018) 13:e0201762. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201762

62. Minero M, Tosi MV, Canali E, Wemelsfelder F. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the response of foals to the presence of an unfamiliar human. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 116:74–81. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.07.001

63. Sankey C, Richard-Yris M-A, Leroy H, Henry S, Hausberger M. Positive interactions lead to lasting positive memories in horses, Equus caballus. Anim Behav. (2010) 79:869–75. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.037

64. Knolle F, Goncalves RP, Morton AJ. Sheep recognize familiar and unfamiliar human faces from two-dimensional images. Roy Soc Open Sci. (2017) 4:171228. doi: 10.1098/rsos.171228

65. Kuhne F, Hößler JC, Struwe R. Behavioral and cardiac responses by dogs to physical human–dog contact. J Vet Behav. (2014) 9:93–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2014.02.006

66. Rehn T, Handlin L, Uvnäs-Moberg K, Keeling LJ. Dogs' endocrine and behavioural responses at reunion are affected by how the human initiates contact. Physiol Behav. (2014) 124:45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.10.009

67. Nagasawa M, Mitsui S, En S, Ohtani N, Ohta M, Sakuma Y, et al. Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds. Science. (2015) 348:333–6. doi: 10.1126/science.1261022

68. Waiblinger S, Menke C, Fölsch DW. Influences on the avoidance and approach behaviour of dairy cows towards humans on 35 farms. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2003) 84:23–39. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(03)00148-5

69. Duranton C, Bedossa T, Gaunet F. Interspecific behavioural synchronization: dogs exhibit locomotor synchrony with humans. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:12384. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12577-z

70. Feldman R. From biological rhythms to social rhythms: physiological precursors of mother-infant synchrony. Dev Psychol. (2006) 42:175–88. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.175

71. Mariti C, Carlone B, Protti M, Diverio S, Gazzano A. Effects of petting before a brief separation from the owner on dog behavior and physiology: a pilot study. J Vet Behav. (2018) 27:41–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.07.003

72. von Borell E, Langbein J, Després G, Hansen S, Leterrier C, Marchant-Forde J, et al. Heart rate variability as a measure of autonomic regulation of cardiac activity for assessing stress and welfare in farm animals—a review. Physiol Behav. (2007) 92:293–316. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.01.007

73. Rault J-L. Effects of positive and negative human contacts and intranasal oxytocin on cerebrospinal fluid oxytocin. Psychoneuroendocrino. (2016) 69:60–6. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.03.015

74. Kis A, Gergely A, Galambos Á, Abdai J, Gombos F, Bódizs R, et al. Sleep macrostructure is modulated by positive and negative social experience in adult pet dogs. P Roy Soc B: Biol Sci. (2017) 284:20171883. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1883

75. Lyons DM, Price EO. Relationships between heart rates and behavior of goats in encounters with people. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1987) 18:363–9. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(87)90230-9

76. Boivin X, Braastad BO. Effects of handling during temporary isolation after early weaning on goat kids' later response to humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1996) 48:61–71. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01019-X

77. Rault J-L, van den Munkhof M. Buisman-Pijlman FTA. Oxytocin as an Indicator of psychological and social well-being in domesticated animals: a critical review. Front Psychol. (2017) 8:1521. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01521

78. McGowan RTS, Bolte C, Barnett HR, Perez-Camargo G, Martin F. Can you spare 15 min? The measurable positive impact of a 15-min petting session on shelter dog well-being. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2018) 203:42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.02.011

79. Handlin L, Hydbring-Sandberg E, Nilsson A, Ejdebäck M, Jansson A, Uvnäs-Moberg K. Short-term interaction between dogs and their owners: effects on oxytocin, cortisol, insulin and heart rate—an exploratory study. Anthrozoös. (2011) 24:301–15. doi: 10.2752/175303711X13045914865385

80. Rygula R, Pluta H, Popik P. Laughing rats are optimistic. PLoS ONE. (2012) 7:e51959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051959

81. Gygax L, Reefmann N, Pilheden T, Scholkmann F, Keeling L. Dog behavior but not frontal brain reaction changes in repeated positive interactions with a human: a non-invasive pilot study using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Behav Brain Res. (2015) 281:172–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.11.044

82. Guesdon V, Nowak R, Meurisse M, Boivin X, Cornilleau F, Chaillou E, et al. Behavioral evidence of heterospecific bonding between the lamb and the human caregiver and mapping of associated brain network. Psychoneuroendocrino. (2016) 71:159–69. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.05.020

83. Spruijt BMR, van den Bos Pijlman FTA. A concept of welfare based on reward evaluating mechanisms in the brain: anticipatory behaviour as an indicator for the state of reward systems. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2001) 72:145–71. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00204-5

84. Clegg ILK, Rödel HG, Boivin X, Delfour F. Looking forward to interacting with their caretakers: dolphins' anticipatory behaviour indicates motivation to participate in specific events. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2018) 202:85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.01.015

85. Redcay E, Schilbach L. Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social interaction. Nat Rev Neurosci. (2019) 20:495–505. doi: 10.1038/s41583-019-0179-4

86. Chartrand TL, Bargh JA. The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1999) 76:893–910. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893

87. Petersson M, Uvnäs-Moberg K, Nilsson A, Gustafson L-L, Hydbring-Sandberg E, Handlin L. Oxytocin and cortisol levels in dog owners and their dogs are associated with behavioral patterns: an exploratory study. Front Psychol. (2017) 8:1796. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01796

88. Gácsi M, Gyori B, Miklósi Á, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Topál J, et al. Species-specific differences and similarities in the behavior of hand-raised dog and wolf pups in social situations with humans. Dev Psychobiol. (2005) 47:111–22. doi: 10.1002/dev.20082

89. Luescher AU, Reisner IR. Canine aggression toward familiar people: a new look at an old problem. Vet Clin N Am Small Anim Pract. (2008) 38:1107–30. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2008.04.008

90. Tallet C, Sy K, Prunier A, Nowak R, Boissy A, Boivin X. Behavioural and physiological reactions of piglets to gentle tactile interactions vary according to their previous experience with humans. Livest Sci. (2014) 167:331–41. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.06.025

91. Wemelsfelder F, Hunter TEA, Mendl MT, Lawrence AB. Assessing the 'whole animal': a free choice profiling approach. Anim Behav. (2001) 62:209–20. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1741

92. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Hansen C. The influence of handling by humans on the behaviour, reproduction and corticosteroids of male and female pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1986) 15:303–14. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(86)90123-1

93. Odendaal JSJ, Meintjes RA. Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs. Vet J. (2003) 165:296–301. doi: 10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00237-X

94. Coulon M, Nowak R, Andanson S, Ravel C, Marnet PG, Boissy A, et al. Human–lamb bonding: oxytocin, cortisol and behavioural responses of lambs to human contacts and social separation. Psychoneuroendocrino. (2013) 38:499–508. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.07.008

95. Lürzel S, Bückendorf L, Waiblinger S, Rault J-L. Salivary oxytocin in pigs, cattle, and goats during positive human-animal interactions. Psychoneuroendocrino. (2020) 115:104636. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.104636

96. Feh C, de Mazières J. Grooming at a preferred site reduces heart rate in horses. Anim Behav. (1993) 46:1191–4. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1309

97. Lange A, Bauer L, Futschik A, Waiblinger S, Lürzel S. Talking to Cows: Reactions to Different Auditory Stimuli During Gentle Human-Animal Interactions. Front. Psychol. (2020) 11:579346. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579346

98. Hasin Y, Seldin M, Lusis A. Multi-omics approaches to disease. Genome Biol. (2017) 18:83. doi: 10.1186/s13059-017-1215-1

99. Nerem R, Levesque M, Cornhill J. Social environment as a factor in diet-induced atherosclerosis. Science. (1980) 208:1475–6. doi: 10.1126/science.7384790

100. Gross WB, Siegel PB. Effects of early environmental stresses on chicken body weight, antibody response to RBC antigens, feed efficiency and response to handling. Avian Dis. (1979) 24:569–79. doi: 10.2307/1589792

101. Zulkifli I, Gilbert J, Liew PK, Ginsos J. The effects of regular visual contact with human beings on fear, stress, antibody and growth responses in broiler chickens. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2002) 79:103–12. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00135-1

102. Mendl M, Burman OHP, Parker RMA, Paul ES. Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 118:161–81. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023

103. Mendl M, Brooks J, Basse C, Burman O, Paul E, Blackwell E, et al. Dogs showing separation-related behaviour exhibit a ‘pessimistic’ cognitive bias. Curr Biol. (2010) 20:R839–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.030

104. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Broad KD, Fabre-Nys C, Keverne B. Facial and vocal discrimination in sheep. Anim Behav. (1995) 49:1665–76. doi: 10.1016/0003-3472(95)90088-8

105. Andics A, Miklósi Á. Neural processes of vocal social perception: Dog-human comparative fMRI studies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2018) 85:54–64. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.017

106. Reiter D. The Influence of the Milker's Behaviour on Social Behaviour of Dairy Cows . Vienna: University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna (2018).

107. Lürzel S, Windschnurer I, Futschik A, Palme R, Waiblinger S. Effects of gentle interactions on the relationship with humans and on stress-related parameters in group-housed calves. Anim Welfare. (2015) 24:475–84. doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.4.475

108. Collins JW, Siegel PB. Human handling, flock size and responses to an E. coli challenge in young chickens. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1987) 19:183–8. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(87)90215-2

109. Dawkins MS. The science of animal suffering. Ethology. (2008) 114:937–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01557.x

110. Kirkden RD, Pajor EA. Using preference, motivation and aversion tests to ask scientific questions about animals' feelings. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2006) 100:29–47. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.009

111. Waiblinger S, Wagner K, Hillmann E, Barth K. Short- and long-term effects of rearing dairy calves with contact to their mother on their reactions towards humans. J Dairy Res. (2020) 87:148–53. doi: 10.1017/S0022029920000576

112. Hemsworth PH, Brand A, Willems P. The behavioural response of sows to the presence of human beings and its relation to productivity. Livest Prod Sci. (1981) 8:67–74. doi: 10.1016/0301-6226(81)90031-2

113. Windschnurer I, Schmied C, Boivin X, Waiblinger S. Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows' relationship to humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2008) 114:37–53. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.017

114. Spinka M. Animal agency, animal awareness and animal welfare. Anim Welfare. (2019) 28:11–20. doi: 10.7120/09627286.28.1.011

115. Baciadonna L, Nawroth C, McElligott A. Judgement bias in goats (Capra hircus): investigating the effects of human grooming. PeerJ. (2016) 4:e2485. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2485

116. Destrez A, Coulon M, Deiss V, Delval E, Boissy A, Boivin X. The valence of the long-lasting emotional experiences with various handlers modulates discrimination and generalization of individual humans in sheep. J Anim Sci. (2013) 91:5418–26. doi: 10.2527/jas.2012-5654

117. Chijiiwa H, Kuroshima H, Hori Y, Anderson JR, Fujita K. Dogs avoid people who behave negatively to their owner: third-party affective evaluation. Anim Behav. (2015) 106:123–7. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.05.018

118. Muvhali PT. Improving ostrich welfare by developing positive human-animal interactions (thesis). University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa (2018).

119. Jones RB. Reduction of the domestic chick's fear of human beings by regular handling and related treatments. Anim Behav. (1993) 46:991–8. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1280

120. Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Hennessy DP, McCallum TH, Newman EA. The effects of modifying the amount of human contact on behavioural, physiological and production responses of laying hens. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1994) 41:87–100. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90054-X

121. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL, Tilbrook AJ, Hansen C. The effects of handling by humans at calving and during milking on the behaviour and milk cortisol concentrations of primiparous dairy cows. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1989) 22:313–26. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(89)90026-9

122. Heird JC, Whitaker DD, Bell RW, Ramsey CB, Lokey CE. The effects of handling at different ages on the subsequent learning ability of 2-year-old horses. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1986) 15:15–25. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(86)90018-3

123. Bertenshaw C, Rowlinson P, Edge H, Douglas S, Shiel R. The effect of different degrees of ‘positive’ human–animal interaction during rearing on the welfare and subsequent production of commercial dairy heifers. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2008) 114:65–75. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.12.002

124. Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL. The effects of early contact with humans on the subsequent level of fear of humans in pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1992) 35:83–90. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(92)90018-7

125. LaFollette MR, O'Haire ME, Cloutier S, Blankenberger WB, Gaskill BN. Rat tickling: a systematic review of applications, outcomes, and moderators. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0175320. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175320

126. Rooney NJ, Cowan S. Training methods and owner–dog interactions: links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2011) 132:169–77. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.03.007

127. Pratsch L, Mohr N, Palme R, Rost J, Troxler J, Arhant C. Carrier training cats reduces stress on transport to a veterinary practice. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2018) 206:64–74. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.05.025

128. Laule GE, Bloomsmith MA, Schapiro SJ. The use of positive reinforcement training techniques to enhance the care, management, and welfare of primates in the laboratory. J Appl Anim Welfare Sci. (2003) 6:163–73. doi: 10.1207/S15327604JAWS0603_02

129. Muns R, Rault J-L, Hemsworth P. Positive human contact on the first day of life alters the piglet's behavioural response to humans and husbandry practices. Physiol Behav. (2015) 151:162–7. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.06.030

130. Tallet C, Rakotomahandry M, Guérin C, Lemasson A, Hausberger M. Postnatal auditory preferences in piglets differ according to maternal emotional experience with the same sounds during gestation. Sci Rep. (2016) 6:37238. doi: 10.1038/srep37238

131. Tosi MV, Hemsworth PH. Stockperson–and husbandry interactions animal welfare in the extensive livestock industries. Int Soc Appl Ethol. (2002) 129. Available online at: https://www.applied-ethology.org/res/2002%20isae%20in%20egmond%20aan%20zee_%20netherlands.pdf

132. Scott JP. The process of primary socialization in canine and human infants. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. (1963) 28:1–47. doi: 10.2307/1165508

133. Foster T, DeFazio R, Bizon J. Characterizing cognitive aging of spatial and contextual memory in animal models. Front Aging Neurosci. (2012) 4:12. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2012.00012

134. Boivin X, Neindre PL, Chupin JM. Establishment of cattle-human relationships. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1992) 32:325–35. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80025-5

135. Henry S, Hemery D, Richard MA, Hausberger M. Human–mare relationships and behaviour of foals toward humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2005) 93:341–62. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.01.008

136. Tallet C, Leribillard O, Rault J-L, Meunier-Salaün M-C. Social transmission of approach behaviour toward humans in pigs [In French]. Conference Proceedings of the annual congress of the French society for the study of animal behaviour (SFECA) . Rennes, France (2018).

137. Bertin A, Richard-Yris M-A, Houdelier C, Lumineau S, Möstl E, Kuchar A, et al. Habituation to humans affects yolk steroid levels and offspring phenotype in quail. Horm Behav. (2008) 54:396–402. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.04.012

138. Price EO, Thos J. Behavioral responses to short-term social isolation in sheep and goats. Appl Anim Ethol. (1980) 6:331–9. doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(80)90133-9

139. Munksgaard L, De Passillé AM, Rushen J, Thodberg K, Jensen MB. Discrimination of people by dairy cows based on handling. J Dairy Sci. (1997) 80:1106–12. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76036-3

140. Markowitz TM, Dally MR, Gursky K, Price EO. Early handling increases lamb affinity for humans. Anim Behav. (1998) 55:573–87. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0640

141. Hubrecht RC. A comparison of social and environmental enrichment methods for laboratory housed dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1993) 37:345–61. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(93)90123-7

142. Hubrecht RC. Enrichment in puppyhood and its effects on later behavior of dogs. Lab Anim Sci. (1995) 45:70–5.

143. Fureix C, Jego P, Sankey C, Hausberger M. How horses (Equus caballus) see the world: humans as significant objects. Anim Cogn. (2009) 12:643–54. doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0223-2

144. Boivin X, Garel JP, Mante A, Le Neindre P. Beef calves react differently to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous interactions with their caretaker. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1998) 55:245–57. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00050-6

145. de Passillé AM, Rushen J, Ladewig J, Petherick C. Dairy calves' discrimination of people based on previous handling. J Anim Sci. (1996) 74:969–74. doi: 10.2527/1996.745969x

146. Hemsworth PH, Coleman GJ, Cox M, Barnett JL. Stimulus generalization: the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1994) 40:129–42. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)90077-9

147. Trut L, Oskina I, Kharlamova A. Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. BioEssays. (2009) 31:349–60. doi: 10.1002/bies.200800070

148. Boivin X, Gilard F, Egal D. The effect of early human contact and the separation method from the dam on responses of beef calves to humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 120:132–9. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.011

149. Nagasawa M, Murai K, Mogi K, Kikusui T. Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions. Anim Cogn. (2011) 14:525–33. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0386-5

150. Corsin Müller A, Schmitt K, Anjuli Barber LA, Huber L. Dogs can discriminate emotional expressions of human faces. Curr Biol. (2015) 25:601–5. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.055

151. Albuquerque N, Guo K, Wilkinson A, Savalli C, Otta E, Mills D. Dogs recognize dog and human emotions. Biol Lett. (2016) 12:20150883. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0883

152. Smith AV, Proops L, Grounds K, Wathan J, McComb K. Functionally relevant responses to human facial expressions of emotion in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). Biol Lett. (2016) 12:20150907. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0907

153. Nawroth C, Albuquerque N, Savalli C, Single M-S, McElligott AG. Goats prefer positive human emotional facial expressions. Roy Soc Open Sci. (2018) 5:180491. doi: 10.1098/rsos.180491

154. Merola I, Lazzaroni M, Marshall-Pescini S, Prato-Previde E. Social referencing and cat-human communication. Anim Cogn. (2015) 18:639–48. doi: 10.1007/s10071-014-0832-2

155. Arhant C, Beetz AM, Troxler J. Caregiver reports of interactions between children up to 6 years and their family dog—implications for dog bite prevention. Front Vet Sci. (2017) 4:130. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2017.00130

156. Coppola CL, Grandin T, Enns RM. Human interaction and cortisol: can human contact reduce stress for shelter dogs? Physiol Behav. (2006) 87:537–41. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.12.001

157. Luescher AU, Tyson Medlock R. The effects of training and environmental alterations on adoption success of shelter dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 117:63–8. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.11.001

158. Normando S, Corain L, Salvadoretti M, Meers L, Valsecchi P. Effects of an Enhanced Human Interaction Program on shelter dogs' behaviour analysed using a novel nonparametric test. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2009) 116:211–9. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.10.005

159. De Meyer D, Amalraj A, Van Limbergen T, Fockedey M, Edwards S, Moustsen VA, et al. Short Communication: effect of positive handling of sows on litter performance and pre-weaning piglet mortality. Animal. (2020) 14:1733–9. doi: 10.1017/S1751731120000427

160. Waiblinger S, Menke C, Korff J, Bucher A. Previous handling and gentle interactions affect behaviour and heart rate of dairy cows during a veterinary procedure. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2004) 85:31–42. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.07.002

161. Pedersen V, Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Newman EA, Schirmer B. The effects of handling on behavioural and physiological responses to housing in tether-stalls among pregnant pigs. Anim Welfare. (1998) 7:137–50.

162. Cimarelli G, Turcsán B, Bánlaki Z, Range F, Virányi Z. Dog owners' interaction styles: their components and associations with reactions of pet dogs to a social threat. Front Psychol. (2016) 7:1979. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01979

163. Bloomfield RC, Gillespie GR, Kerswell KJ, Butler KL, Hemsworth PH. Effect of partial covering of the visitor viewing area window on positioning and orientation of zoo orangutans: a preference test. Zoo Biol. (2015) 34:223–9. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21207

164. Boivin X, Le Neindre P, Chupin JM, Garel JP, Trillat G. Influence of breed and early management on ease of handling and open-field behaviour of cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci (1992) 32:313–23. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(05)80024-3

165. Lyons DM. Individual differences in temperament of dairy goats and the inhibition of milk ejection. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (1989) 22:269–82. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(89)90022-1

166. Day JEL, Spoolder HAM, Burfoot A, Chamberlain HL, Edwards SA. The separate and interactive effects of handling and environmental enrichment on the behaviour and welfare of growing pigs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. (2002) 75:177–92. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00199-X

167. Lindahl C, Pinzke S, Herlin A, Keeling LJ. Human-animal interactions and safety during dairy cattle handling—comparing moving cows to milking and hoof trimming. J Dairy Sci . (2016) 99:2131–41. doi: 10.3168/jds.2014-9210

168. Lawrence AB, Vigors B, Sandøe P. What is so positive about positive animal welfare?—a critical review of the literature. Animals. (2019) 9:783. doi: 10.3390/ani9100783

Keywords: agency, domestic, interaction, inter-species, perception, positive welfare, welfare assessment, well-being

Citation: Rault J-L, Waiblinger S, Boivin X and Hemsworth P (2020) The Power of a Positive Human–Animal Relationship for Animal Welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 7:590867. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.590867

Received: 03 August 2020; Accepted: 29 September 2020; Published: 09 November 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Rault, Waiblinger, Boivin and Hemsworth. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jean-Loup Rault, jean-loup.rault@vetmeduni.ac.at

This article is part of the Research Topic

Humans in an Animal’s World – How Non-Human Animals Perceive and Interact with Humans

Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty

Why you should eat meat

Not eating animals is wrong. if you care about animals, then the right thing to do is breed them, kill them and eat them.

by Nick Zangwill   + BIO

If you care about animals, you should eat them. It is not just that you may do so, but you should do so. In fact, you owe it to animals to eat them. It is your duty. Why? Because eating animals benefits them and has benefitted them for a long time. Breeding and eating animals is a very long-standing cultural institution that is a mutually beneficial relationship between human beings and animals. We bring animals into existence, care for them, rear them, and then kill and eat them. From this, we get food and other animal products, and they get life. Both sides benefit. I should say that by ‘animals’ here, I mean nonhuman animals. It is true that we are also animals, but we are also more than that, in a way that makes a difference.

It is true that the practice does not benefit an animal at the moment we eat it. The benefit to the animal on our dinner table lies in the past. Nevertheless, even at that point, it has benefitted by its destiny of being killed and eaten. The existence of that animal, and animals of its kind, depends on human beings killing and eating animals of that kind. Domesticated animals exist in the numbers they do only because there is a practice of eating them. For example, the many millions of sheep in New Zealand would not begin to survive in the wild. They exist only because human beings eat them. The meat-eating practice benefits them greatly and has benefitted them greatly. So, we should eat them. Not eating them is wrong, and it lets these animals down.

Of course, the animals we eat should have good lives, and so the worst kind of factory farming is not justified by this argument, since these animals have no quality of life. Life is not enough; it must be life with a certain quality. But some farmed animals do have good lives overall, and sheep farming in New Zealand is an example. Perhaps a minority of meat produced in the world today involves such happy animals. But it is a significant minority, one that justifies much eating of those happy animals. If demand shifted to these animals, there would be fewer animals in existence than there actually are. But that is OK, since the argument is not a maximising one, but an appeal to history.

Yes, there is the day of the abattoir, and the sad death of the animal, which is not usually as free from pain and suffering as it might be. And there is other pain and suffering in the lives of those animals, such as when mothers are separated from their young. However, the pleasure and happiness of animals also matters, and it may outweigh pain and suffering – something usually overlooked by most of those who affect to care for animals. The emphasis among the defenders of so-called ‘animal rights’ on animal pain and suffering while ignoring animal pleasure and happiness is bizarre and disturbing. Human beings suffer, and their deaths are often miserable. But few would deem their entire lives worthless because of that. Likewise, why should the gloomy and unpleasant end of many of the animals we eat cast a negative shadow over their entire lives up to that point?

I suspect that the pleasure and happiness of animals is overlooked because they are not of our species. This is a kind of speciesism that particularly afflicts devotees of ‘animals rights’. All lives have their ups and downs; and this is true for animals as well as human beings. Both ups and downs are important.

I t is this ongoing history of mutual benefit that generates a moral duty of human beings to eat animals. Were the practice beneficial only to one of the two parties, that would perhaps not justify persisting with it. But both benefit. In fact, animals benefit a lot more than human beings do. For human beings could survive as vegetarians or vegans, whereas very few domesticated animals could survive many human beings being vegetarians or vegans. Indeed, if many human beings became vegetarians or vegans, it would be the greatest disaster that there has ever been for animals since the time that an asteroid strike wiped out the dinosaurs and many other species.

Vegetarians and vegans are the natural enemies of domesticated animals that are bred to be eaten. Of course, not all vegetarians and vegans are alike. Quite a few vegetarians and vegans are not motivated by animal rights or welfare, but by a feeling of taboo or pollution – a revulsion at the idea of eating animal flesh. For such vegetarians and vegans, roadkill is off the menu. Unlike the appeal to animal rights or the welfare of animals, this is a reason I respect. But such vegetarians and vegans should admit that acting on these feelings is bad for animals.

Do the motives of carnivores and farmers matter? Typically, they are not high-mindedly concerned with the welfare of animals. But if there are beneficial effects on animals as a side-effect of impure motives, we might think that is all that matters. Or: we might follow Immanuel Kant in distinguishing between treating humans or animals as a means, which may be acceptable, and treating them merely as a means, which is not. So long as carnivores and farmers have the former motives, not the latter, there is no complaint against them.

Small-scale farming in which animals have good lives does not harm the environment much

It is because history matters that we should not eat dogs that were originally bred to be pets or for work. The dog-human institution licenses only the behaviour that is in accordance with its historical function . Eating dogs would violate that tradition. The reason that these domesticated animals exist makes a difference.

Carnivorous institutions do not exist in isolation. Whatever may be the benefit or harms to the animals and human beings that are its participants, there are also further effects of the practice that may be considered. First, consider some positive effects. There are the gustatory pleasures of human beings. There are some health benefits to human beings. There is employment for many who work in the meat industry. There are the aesthetic benefits of countryside with charming grazing animals in elegant, well-maintained fields.

However, the big negative, for many people is climate, and the effects, mostly, of cattle burping and farting. Does not climate give us reason to be vegetarian or vegan? Well, since the problem mostly comes from cows, one option would be to move to eating other kinds of animals in greater numbers. Moreover, the climate damage is mostly due to very intensive factory farming, which I do not defend because the animals do not have good lives. Indeed, the evidence is that small-scale farming in which animals have good lives does not harm the environment much, and it may even benefit it.

T he argument from historical benefit does not apply to wild animals, which are in an entirely different category. Human beings did not create these animals with a purpose, and so we do not owe them anything in virtue of that relationship, although, as sentient beings, their lives deserve respect. Can we hunt them for food if we are hungry, or kill them if they harm us? Probably yes, depending on the degree of need and the degree of harm. Can we hunt them purely for sport? Perhaps not. They have their conscious lives, and who are we to take it away from them without cause?

The lives of wild animals are an endless cycle of trauma, pain and death. Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s phrase about nature ‘red in tooth and claw’ hardly begins to do justice to the extent of the hunger, fear and agony of the lives and deaths of animals in the wild. They kill and eat each other relentlessly, by the billion. This awful truth about wild animals is concealed from children in the vast majority of children’s books and films in which fictional animals of different kinds are represented as chummy friends, instead of ripping each other apart for food. Where they get their food is usually glossed over. Most of what adults tell children about animals is a spectacular lie.

In nurturing animals that we raise for food or other purposes, human beings seem to do better than God

The ‘problem of evil’ is a standard problem for belief in God’s existence, and the usual focus is on human suffering. But the suffering of wild animals should also be a major headache for God, and perhaps more of a headache than human suffering. Why would an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful god make animals suffer so much? The nature and extent of animal suffering makes an even more compelling argument against God’s existence because the usual replies in the human case, especially the appeal to the value of free will, are not available for animals. If there is a good god, we might well wonder why such bloody horror was unleashed on these creatures.

Human beings are in fact a rare light in the darkness of the animal kingdom when we nurture some animals in order to eat them. Many domesticated animals are bred and raised for food in conditions that should be the envy of wild animals. The daily life of some of the animals we eat is almost like a spa! If vegetarians and vegans are the natural enemies of domesticated animals, carnivorous human beings are their natural friends. Indeed, in nurturing and caring for animals that we raise for food or other purposes, human beings seem to do better than God.

D oes this pro-carnivorous argument apply to eating human beings? Does it imply that we should enslave, kill and eat some human beings if it is to their benefit? No. For one thing, the situations are entirely different. Domesticated animals, such as cows, sheep and chickens, owe their existence to the fact that we prey upon them, whereas human beings do not owe their existence to being preyed on. As far as I know, there are no human beings who owe their existence to a cannibalistic meat-eating practice. And even if there were, they could survive without it, if liberated, which is radically unlike domesticated animals. The situation of human beings and domesticated animals is entirely different.

More fundamentally, human beings have rights of a kind that animals lack. Having rights does not just mean that the lives of human beings and animals matter – of course they do. It means something more specific, which implies that it would be wrong to kill and eat human beings against their will, even if the practice were to benefit them. So, for example, when one human being innocently goes for a hospital checkup, a doctor should not cut them open for the purpose of harvesting their organs for transplants that will save the lives of five other human beings. But a veterinary surgeon may , I believe, cut open one innocent ownerless dog who wanders in off the street to save five other ownerless dogs. In that sense, animals do not have ‘rights’. These rights mark a moral line between human beings and animals. Suppose, though, that we are less particular about how we use the word ‘rights’, and animals having ‘rights’ just means that their conscious lives matter. In that case, we respect those ‘rights’ when we kill and eat domesticated animals. Indeed, if we did not do that, there would be no such animals to have rights.

What, then, is the source of these rights, which human beings have and that animals lack? Along with many others, I think that source is our ‘rationality’, where that is an ability to think things, do things or make decisions, for reasons. Of course, we do not always reason as we should. But all that rationality means here is that we often do or think things because we think it was the right thing to do or think. The philosopher Christine Korsgaard seems to have got this right with her idea that reasoning, or at least the kind of human reasoning that is self-conscious, involves what she calls ‘normative self-government’. This is more than the ability to think about our own thoughts (often called ‘metacognition’) but is also the ability to change one’s mind, for instance, in forming beliefs or intentions, because we think that our mindset demands it. In reasoning, of the more self-conscious kind, we apply normative concepts to ourselves and change our minds because of that.

We should kill and eat them, so long as their lives are good overall before we do that

It is true that human babies cannot yet use reason, and that there are adult human beings who cannot reason, due to a mental disability. Rationality theorists have stumbled over these cases. But they can easily be finessed if we say that human beings have reasoning as their nature or telos , as the ancient Greeks might have said. Being rational is a function of human beings, which they do not always fulfil, just as not all hearts pump blood and not all coffee machines make coffee. We may say that dogs have four legs even though there are a very few unfortunate dogs with only three legs who have had an accident or were born with a genetic deformity. Likewise, we may say that human beings are rational animals, despite human babies and adult human beings with mental disabilities that preclude reasoning, because mature human beings often have reasons for what they think, do and decide.

In 1780, Jeremy Bentham said of animals: ‘The question is not, Can they reason ?, nor Can they talk ? but, Can they suffer ?’ I agree that the suffering of animals is important, but, as I have complained, so is their pleasure and happiness. And I would also like to complain that just because suffering is important does not make reasoning unimportant. Perhaps both are important, in different ways. If, unlike Bentham, we admit rights (he thought they were ‘nonsense upon stilts’), then the question is very much ‘Can they reason?’ Because they reason, human beings have rights, whereas animals lack rights because they cannot reason. Since they lack rights, we can paternalistically consider what is good for them. And this good dictates that we should kill and eat them, so long as their lives are good overall before we do that. They have no rights standing in the way of the mutually beneficial carnivorous practice.

Someone might wonder whether we should rest all of our special worth, and our right to protection from intraspecies predation, on our rationality. We have other impressive characteristics that might also generate rights. However, one of the advantages of the appeal to rationality is the way that it embraces many other aspects of human life that we think are important and valuable. Consider our impressive knowledge or creative imagination – these might also be intrinsically valuable in such a way as to generate distinctive rights, including the right not to be eaten against our will. These valuable characteristics also seem to be distinctive of human beings. However, many of these characteristics depend on rationality. Knowledge, of the extent, and acquired in the way that much human knowledge is acquired, is also possible only for reflective rational beings. The scientific project, for example, is predicated on a certain self-reflectiveness about methods and evidence – especially measurement.

So, these phenomena seem still to be within the orbit of rationality. What about the creative imagination? Many Surrealists thought that excessive rational thought was responsible for the horrors of the First World War, and as a response they valued creative imagination over rational deliberation, as in André Breton’s Manifesto of Surrealism (1924). However, what is human creative imagination? Do animals imagine in this way? Perhaps a pet dog can imagine being taken for a walk. But this is not like the creative imagination of human beings who invent interesting or beautiful works of art or literature, who revolutionise scientific theories or who envisage novel ways of living. Only the reflective rational mind can have creative imagination of this sort. Thus, it seems that many phenomena of human beings that seem special and distinctive, and that are of moral significance in the sense of having potential to generate rights, turn out to depend on rationality.

W ith this conception of rationality in hand, let us now turn the spotlight on the minds of animals. Let us begin with our close cousins – apes and monkeys. Do they share the rational capacities of human beings? The research on apes and monkeys is currently inconclusive. Researchers do not agree. There is some evidence suggesting that some such creatures can engage in a kind of reasoning, or at least that they have modes of thought continuous with human reasoning. In fact, the best evidence for primate reasoning is a kind of upside-down evidence, that some apes and monkeys appear to suffer from irrationalities similar to those besetting human beings. The psychologists Laurie Santos and Alexandra Rosati argued this in an article in 2015. And surely: if the animals are reasoning badly, then they are reasoning. The conclusion that they reason is controversial but, if it were right, it would mean that such animals should be protected by moral rights like those of human beings in virtue of their rationality. However, at present, we do not know enough to go one way or the other with full personhood rights for apes and monkeys.

By contrast with these cases, the research is less ambiguous concerning most of the domesticated animals that we eat: cows, sheep, chickens, and the rest. Hardly any researchers think these animals reason. They are conscious, they have pleasures and pains, and they show intelligence of a kind when they use tools, for example. They can pursue means to an end. However, many highly intelligent species, such as elephants and dogs , pursue means to an end, but only inflexibly, so that they carry on pursuing the means when the two are visibly disconnected. Such inflexibility suggests that the psychological mechanism in play is association, not reasoning. And if elephants and dogs are not reasoning, it is unlikely that cows, sheep and chickens do better on this score.

We do not have to wait to see what the research turns up; we may proceed directly to the dinner table

Even Lori Marino , who is an enthusiastic advocate for the sophistication of the minds of domesticated animals does not suggest that these animals have anything like the self-conscious reasoning that is characteristic of human beings. There just seems to be no evidence suggesting that cows , sheep and chickens can reason in Korsgaard’s self-reflective sense; and that means that they lack rights. Of course, lacking rights does not mean that their lives have no value, unless one deploys a uselessly obese notion of rights. Their consciousness matters. But that is exactly why we should kill and eat them. With these animals, we are doing them a favour if we kill and eat them. The exceptions among the animals that we breed to eat are pigs, whose surprisingly adept operation of computer joysticks demonstrates cognitive flexibility that may indicate reasoning.

In all, the state of play of the evidence in animal psychology suggests different degrees of certainty for different animals. There is uncertainty concerning our nearest relatives – apes and monkeys – while there is more clarity about most of the domesticated animals that we breed to eat. Apart from pigs , it is clear that farmed animals cannot reason reflectively, and therefore they lack the rights that would prevent us eating them for their benefit. With cows, sheep and chickens, we do not have to wait to see what the research turns up; we may proceed directly to the dinner table.

A chicken may cross a road, but it does not decide to do so for a reason. The chicken may even be caused to cross the road by some desire that it has; and the chicken may exhibit intelligence in whether or not it crosses the road. But the chicken makes no decision to follow its desires, and it makes no reasoned decision about whether or not it is a good idea to cross the road. We can ask: ‘Why did the chicken cross the road?’ but the chicken cannot ask itself: ‘Why should I cross the road?’ We can. That’s why we can eat it.

Conscientious unbelievers

How, a century ago, radical freethinkers quietly and persistently subverted Scotland’s Christian establishment

Felicity Loughlin

History of technology

Why America fell for guns

The US today has extraordinary levels of gun ownership. But to see this as a venerable tradition is to misread history

Psychiatry and psychotherapy

The therapist who hated me

Going to a child psychoanalyst four times a week for three years was bad enough. Reading what she wrote about me was worse

Michael Bacon

The scourge of lookism

It is time to take seriously the painful consequences of appearance discrimination in the workplace

Andrew Mason

Economic history

The southern gap

In the American South, an oligarchy of planters enriched itself through slavery. Pervasive underdevelopment is their legacy

Keri Leigh Merritt

Thinkers and theories

Our tools shape our selves

For Bernard Stiegler, a visionary philosopher of our digital age, technics is the defining feature of human experience

Bryan Norton

• All categories

Humans and animals: how is their relationship defined?

Speakers from all over the world offered their interesting views on the relationship between humans and animals during the LUCAS Graduate Conference, based around the central theme ‘Animals: Theory, Practice, and Representation’.

Animal studies

This year, the Graduate Conference of the Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society (LUCAS) focused on a highly relevant and current topic: the study of animals in its broadest sense. This field of research, animal studies , is receiving more and more attention due to the increasing environmental crisis, ecological themes and the moral debates on exploitation by human activities. The aim of the conference is to reflect on relationships between humans and animals in order to research how these relationships are defined. 

Lisanne Wepler, one of the organisers, explains why they’ve chosen this theme: ‘The subject of ‘animals’ is socially very important and interesting; ultimately it affects everyone in one way or another. The subject ties in with new ideas about environmental protection and our own consumer behaviour, and it is about our relationship with our “fellow beings”.

The conference at the Rijksmuseum Boerhaave covered a wide range of subjects. By approaching the subject from different angles, a substantively strong and at the same time educational program was created, for both scientists and museum visitors present.

The conference started with the keynote speech ‘The dark side of dairy’

by Dr. Tobias Linné. The verb ‘to milk’, for example, means ‘to exploit’. And while milk is often associated with purity, health, and femininity, Linné brought to light how milk also symbolises the exploitation (of bodies) and white superiority.

This was followed by presentations by Ph.D. students about, among other things, overfishing in the Netherlands and the artificial ‘wild’ nature of the Oostvaardersplassen . It resulted in interesting food for thought: under what circumstances can we justify human-animal relationships as mutual companionship or is it simply another form of human cruelty.

On the second day, Prof. Robert Felfe in his keynote speech spoke about the spaces in which we live together with animals and how this cohabitation came about. By showing examples throughout all times of art history – from the Italian Renaissance to contemporary photography – he showed this relation. The embodiment of animals, he says, actively and continuously influences our understanding of animals, instead of what they really are.

A recurring theme was, therefore, animal’s agency: to what extent can animals claim their own space? And what space are we willing to give them? Are there other ways for people to tell stories about and from animals? These are all fascinating questions to which Ph.D. students sought answers in their presentations. Their findings will be compiled in the Journal of the LUCAS Graduate Conference .

Space for everyone

The conference was organised by Ph.D. candidates from the LUCAS institute. This year’s conference was organised by Zexu Guan, Sophia Hendrikx, Ali Shobeiri, Lisanne Wepler (postdoc), Céline Zaepffel, en Jiyu Zhang. For a year and a half, they worked together to make sure the event went smoothly. They managed to enthuse the Boerhaave Museum as a partner and host institute and received a grant from The Kremer Collection .

An important part of academic work is organising conferences, writing abstracts and giving lectures. The LUCAS Graduate Conference was a good and educational exercise for all people involved, from organisers to speakers and panel leaders’, confirms institute manager Ylva Klaassen.

During the two days, it was clear how varied the conference was: speakers from different backgrounds and academic visions got to speak. ‘We received very nice compliments from the participants,’ says Wepler, ‘namely that the atmosphere during the conference was very pleasant. It was a safe place, with a lot of room to ask questions and express opinions.’

Every two years, Ph.D. candidates from the Leiden University Centre for the Arts in Society (LUCAS) organise the Graduate Conference. Leading scientist are invited as keynote speakers and young researchers are given a platform to present and exchange ideas in an international and interdisciplinary environment.

Images: Suzé Klok Text: Suzé Klok, Lisanne Wepler, Jiyu Zhang

• animal ethics

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Animals (Basel)

The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding

Emanuela prato-previde.

1 Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy

Elisa Basso Ricci

2 Associazione Asino Anch’io, 20080 Basiglio, Italy

Elisa Silvia Colombo

3 Petlife, 20151 Milan, Italy

Associated Data

Not applicable.

Simple Summary

The relationship between humans and animals may have positive effects for both parties, but there are situations in which it has poor or even negative effects for animals or for both humans and animals. Several studies reported the positive effects of this relationship in which both humans and animals obtain physical and psychological benefits from living together in a reciprocated interaction. There is also clear evidence that human–animal relationships may be characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals and, in some cases, also for people. This work depicts the complex and multifaceted nature of the human–animal relationship; describes the role of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in the human–animal bond; shows how these psychological processes are involved in a dysfunctional way in animal hoarding, with highly detrimental effects on animal well-being.

The human–animal relationship is ancient, complex and multifaceted. It may have either positive effects on humans and animals or poor or even negative and detrimental effects on animals or both humans and animals. A large body of literature has investigated the beneficial effects of this relationship in which both human and animals appear to gain physical and psychological benefits from living together in a reciprocated interaction. However, analyzing the literature with a different perspective it clearly emerges that not rarely are human–animal relationships characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals and, in some cases, also for people. The negative physical and psychological consequences on animals’ well-being may be very nuanced and concealed, but there are situations in which the negative consequences are clear and striking, as in the case of animal violence, abuse or neglect. Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are human psychological mechanisms that are considered relevant for positive and healthy relationships with animals, but when dysfunctional or pathological determine physical or psychological suffering, or both, in animals as occurs in animal hoarding. The current work reviews some of the literature on the multifaceted nature of the human–animal relationship; describes the key role of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in human–animal relationships; seeks to depict how these psychological processes are distorted and dysfunctional in animal hoarding, with highly detrimental effects on both animal and human well-being.

1. Introduction

Since very ancient times, humans’ social world has comprised not only other humans but also different nonhuman species with whom humans have established relationships varying in form and strength. The relationship with animals has played a key role in our survival and evolution, and our way of considering them and relating to them has changed over the course of time, taking on different forms [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ].

Scientific evidence from different disciplines, including psychology, sociology and animal welfare, shows that the relationship between humans and animals is complex, multifaceted, ambivalent and even paradoxical, with different consequences for animals and humans [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].

For more than 40 years, studies have shown that the human–animal relationship, especially that with domestic and companion animals, is the result of a complex interactions between biological, psychological, social and cultural factors [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].

The current work reviews some of the literature on the complex nature of the human–animal relationship to outline how it can range from highly positive to highly negative. Then, the role of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism is described, aimed at highlighting their key role in determining the quality of human–animal relationships and bonds. Finally, we focus on animal hoarding, a highly dysfunctional relationship with animals, analyzing how empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are involved in this psychological disorder in a dysfunctional or pathological way that leads to animal abuse and suffering.

2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship

Comparative studies have revealed a wealth of commonalities between humans and nonhuman animals that allows them to engage in interspecific social relationships [ 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ].

As pointed out in [ 14 ], one reason why humans are both willing and capable to relate to animals is the presence of basic biological structures and mechanisms that are relevant in social contexts; these mechanisms are shared between humans and other animals and are highly conserved among vertebrates. Basic mechanisms that enable human intraspecific close relationships and bonds appear to also be involved in our relationships and bonds with animals, and various nonhuman species may form intense and durable bonds with people (e.g., [ 24 , 25 ]).

Studies on companion and farm animals show that the way in which animals are considered, treated and cared for is strongly affected by peoples’ characteristics such as personality, attitudes, empathy and attachment levels and beliefs in animals’ mental capacities (e.g., [ 26 , 27 ]). In addition, sociodemographic variables, such as gender, age, family structure, education level and previous experiences with animals, play a role [ 8 , 12 , 13 , 28 , 29 , 30 ].

Gender differences are well documented in the literature, with women consistently showing higher levels of empathy and concern regarding animal suffering, holding more positive attitudes towards animals and being more engaged in animal protection and less prone to animal exploitation, animal abuse and cruelty [ 13 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Apostol et al. [ 13 ], for example, reported that gender was a good predictor of attitudes towards animals, together with empathy towards animals, anthropomorphic beliefs and owning a companion animal.

Personality has been associated with positive attitudes to animals, and there is a relationship between psychopathic personality traits and animal abuse and violence [ 26 , 35 , 36 ]. Empathy and attachment are both related to the quality of human–animal relationships and problems in empathy, attachment and emotion regulation are associated with animal abuse and cruelty [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ].

Attitudes, broadly defined as psychological tendencies to evaluate a particular entity (e.g., humans or animals) with some degree of favor or disfavor [ 41 ], are important in shaping the human–animal relationship and bond and are reported to play a key role in determining animals’ health and welfare. According to [ 12 ], two main aspects underlie human attitudes toward animals: “affect”, which can be defined as people’s affective and emotional responses to animals, and “utility”, i.e., people’s perceptions of animals’ instrumental value. Serpell [ 12 ] suggests that the relative strength of these factors would depend on individual characteristics, experience, cultural factors and also on the specific attributes of animals.

The role of experience and culture in human–animal relationships is well documented in the literature: on the one hand the range of animals kept as pets around the world is exceptionally wide [ 42 ]; on the other hand, human–companion animal relationship styles vary considerably across cultures [ 7 , 16 ]. In Western countries, for example, dogs and cats are mainly kept for companionship, and the idea of eating them is considered intolerable and morally unacceptable; however, in other countries (e.g., China and Vietnam), these species are both kept as pets and consumed [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Moreover, in many Western countries, cats and dogs are the most popular and beloved companion animals, but, at the same time, a huge number of them (and other pets) are abandoned, neglected, abused and needlessly euthanized every year [ 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Finally, most people care about pet welfare, but for various reasons, there is still less concern regarding farm animals’ (e.g., pigs, cows and chickens) welfare [ 49 , 50 ].

Regarding animal characteristics, people generally do not see all animals as equal, as their physical and behavioral traits play a role in how they are perceived, considered and treated [ 12 , 17 , 51 ]. Humans tend to prefer animals that are phylogenetically close to them and perceived as physically, behaviorally or cognitively similar; these aspects trigger more positive affect and attachment and caregiving behaviors, as well as greater empathy and a higher concern in terms of welfare and conservation [ 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. At the same time, in all human societies, animals are ranked on a ‘‘ladder of worth” as is almost everything else, including other humans [ 58 , 59 ].

Knight et al. [ 51 ] suggested that the variability in people’s attitudes to the use and exploitation of animals depends on a combination of different factors including beliefs about the mental capacities of animals, perceived superiority of humans, availability of alternatives to the use of animals for various purposes (e.g., medical research and food) and whether the problem of animal exploitation has any direct personal relevance. Belief in the animal mind appears to be a good predictor of attitudes towards animals and their use and abuse for the benefit of humans (e.g., entertainment, experimentation and financial gain [ 60 , 61 ]). The propensity to use animals is greater when people believe there is no alternative, when their knowledge of how animals are used is poor, when the affinity with animals is low and when the perceived benefits of using animals outweigh the costs [ 51 ].

Finally, there is evidence that people, when facing situations of conflict regarding animal well-being and suffering, tend to “build arguments” that justify and corroborate their existing attitudes or behavior to avoid dissonance [ 62 ]. This has been clearly demonstrated in the “meat paradox”, which shows that those that consume meat may overcome the cognitive dissonance resulting from a positive attitude towards both animals and meat by living either in a state of “tacit denial” regarding animals being killed to produce meat or by denying that animals can suffer [ 63 , 64 ]. In other words, mental abilities and the capacity for suffering tend to be attributed by people to animals when it is in their interest and motivation and not when it does not suit them [ 65 ].

3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?

Given the array of factors involved in most human–animal relationships, it is not surprising that people relate to animals in very different ways that range from highly positive, affectionate and caring to highly negative, dysfunctional or abusive [ 7 , 43 , 58 , 59 , 66 , 67 ]. As Ascione and Shapiro [ 68 ] pointed out, for every study showing that the human–animal relationship can be beneficial and built on love and caring, another deals with animal exploitation or abuse including the abandonment and neglect of companion animals or cases of dog fighting or animal hoarding. Moreover, attachment, empathy and concern for animals do not necessarily guarantee their welfare, and people may disagree on the proper way to treat animals or on what constitutes a fair human–animal relationship [ 8 ].

For example, Mota-Rojas et al. [ 69 ] outlined how adverse consequences on pets’ welfare might depend on widespread and apparently affectionate and caring behaviors, such as dressing pets, application of cosmetics, letting them sleep in beds or overfeeding them, emphasizing that people’s behavior towards companion animals should be based on the understanding and respect of their natural needs rather than on supposed similarities and an affective involvement.

Therefore, people’s relationships with animals in general (farm, zoo and wild animals) and with companion animals cannot be easily categorized into positive (i.e., caring and affectionate) and negative (i.e., neglecting or abusive).

A large body of scientific literature has considered the physical and psychological benefits that both humans and animals may obtain by living together in a reciprocated interaction (e.g., humans: 21, [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ]; see [ 75 , 76 ] for critical analyses; animals: [ 77 , 78 , 79 ]). However, there is also extensive literature showing that human–animal relationships are characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals (e.g., [ 11 , 68 , 69 , 80 , 81 , 82 ]).

As occurs in interpersonal relationships, human beings not only and not always care about the well-being of animals but also pursue their own personal needs, desires and goals; human’s psychological characteristics, self-interest and specific contingent needs and goals may, deliberately or not, prevail in jeopardizing the relationship and the animal’s well-being, leading to dysfunctional or even pathological interactions. Keeping wild species under unnatural conditions for leisure or personal gratification, exploiting farm animals through intensive farming causing them high levels of distress and pain, and abandoning domestic animals mostly for trivial reasons are only a few examples of poor and dysfunctional relationships that are topics of research and debate in the human–animal relationship literature [ 47 , 83 , 84 , 85 ].

The type of companionship sought by people may vary to a great degree, and companion animals may be acquired and kept mainly to fulfill different human needs and desires [ 8 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Some species, either unusual, rare or expensive, are kept as status symbols [ 87 , 91 , 92 ]; some breeds may serve as status objects and are appreciated just for their pedigree or appearance [ 93 ]. Companion animals, mainly dogs and cats, can serve as child substitutes or as toys [ 91 , 94 , 95 ].

Tuan [ 94 ] suggested that when pets are used as toys, they are treated capriciously to gain a sense of power and control that is also expressed through training them to obey to commands. Companion animals, especially dogs, can also serve as extensions of their owners’ self: they may extend their owners’ self not only symbolically by helping them to be something desired but also literally by providing them opportunities to do things that they could not otherwise do such as to engage in childlike games and playful activities or to extend their sphere of interpersonal relationships [ 88 , 96 ]. Keeping pets as an extension of the self implies that they are seen as expressions of the individual’s identity and as part of the person, and thus remaining without them is not conceivable; seeing animals as part of the self involves having an emotional attachment towards them and not just a functional one [ 97 , 98 ].

Finally, there are several examples of negative effects of the human–animal relationship, which include cruel acts and violence towards animals, with various characteristics and different degrees of severity (e.g., [ 66 , 81 , 99 , 100 , 101 ]).

Considering the human–animal relationship with all its nuances helps not only to gain a better understanding of the multidimensional and even contradictory nature of our interactions with other species but also to further explore the mechanisms involved in the “ hows ” and the “ whys ” of human behavior’’ [ 7 , 8 , 66 , 102 ].

4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship

Research provides compelling evidence that human’s relationships with animals cannot be easily characterized as positive–caring vs. negative–abusive but are variable and with several nuances. In the literature, three human psychological mechanisms are considered to play a key role in either positive or negative relationships with animals: empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism. These factors appear to be linked and influence each other, affecting people’s attitudes and beliefs towards animals and the way they are considered, treated and cared for [ 12 , 13 , 27 , 60 , 61 ].

Functional levels of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism may promote people’s concern for animal welfare in general and foster healthy human–animal relationships [ 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 ]. Conversely, a dysfunctional attachment, the lack or suppression of empathy and no tendency to anthropomorphize are related to poor relationships with animals; higher acceptance of animal cruelty in children, adolescents and adults; a greater propensity to animal abuse; a reduced concern for animal welfare in general [ 107 , 108 ]. Dysfunctions in empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism may also lead to various types of animal abuse and neglect including animal hoarding [ 109 ].

4.1. Empathy

“Sympathy beyond the confines of man, that is, humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of the latest moral acquisitions (…). This virtue, one of the noblest which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practiced by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.” Charles Darwin “The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex”, 1871.

As Darwin outlined, empathy is a key component of interpersonal relationships and a central aspect in our relationship with animals. The capacity to experience empathy is important in determining the level of concern and care that people have for other people, for companion and farm animals and for the conservation of wildlife and natural habitat [ 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 ]. For example, studies comparing individuals within animal protection and vegetarians, who share the purpose to avoid cruelty towards animals and to protect them, to general community samples reported that subjects from the first two samples had better attitudes towards the treatment of animals and enhanced empathic brain response towards them than others [ 32 , 114 , 115 ].

Empathy is considered a fundamental component of human emotional experience with an essential role in human social life and interactions [ 116 , 117 ]. It promotes social interactions, motivates prosocial behavior and caring for others (humans or nonhumans), inhibits aggression and is an affective/cognitive prerequisite for moral reasoning and behavior [ 118 , 119 ]. The capacity to empathize seems to be so relevant for a healthy coexistence that its absence or deficiencies are associated with socio-emotional problems and psychopathy [ 116 , 118 , 120 ].

Despite its many different definitions [ 121 ], empathy is considered a complex psychological construct comprising distinct but related components [ 116 , 122 , 123 ]. A basic component consists of affective empathy, which consists of resonance with others’ emotions and the generation of an immediate, appropriate emotional response [ 119 , 124 ].

Affective empathy entails experience sharing and the tendency to assume other individuals’ sensory, motor, visceral and affective states [ 125 ]. Affective resonance and emotional connectedness emerge early in human development and have a long evolutionary history of being shared across mammalian species [ 117 , 126 ]. Affective empathy has two different facets, namely, empathic concern and personal distress [ 127 ]. Empathic concern, is other-oriented, positively associated to emotion recognition and plays a central role in eliciting prosocial behavior, especially when associated with the understanding of others’ internal state [ 127 , 128 , 129 ]. Conversely, personal distress is self-oriented, can produce an aversive, self-focused reaction, with negative emotions, reduced emotion recognition and prosocial behavior [ 127 , 130 ].

The cognitive component of empathy involves recognizing and understanding others’ emotions, self/other awareness and perspective taking, i.e., the ability to understand what another individual is thinking or feeling [ 113 , 116 ].

The emotional and cognitive aspects of empathy cannot be easily separated, and their co-presence and normal development allow people to show compassion and sympathy and to engage in helping behaviors [ 116 , 120 , 121 ].

Although empathy can be automatically triggered, it is also modulated by top-down control processes and influenced by factors such as gender [ 120 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]—with women being generally more empathic towards people than men—motives, experiences, relationship with others, education [ 134 , 135 , 136 ] and contextual factors [ 125 , 131 ].

Culture is reported to attune the perceptual, cognitive and emotional processes involved in empathy to culturally determined ways of expressing emotions, pain and suffering, with cultural similarities and shared experiences modulating empathic responsiveness [ 137 , 138 , 139 ].

Human-directed empathy is amplified by perceived similarity (in appearance, personality and racial group) and familiarity (social closeness and previous positive experiences), and it is significantly reduced for those who are viewed as different, strangers or betrayers [ 123 , 126 , 140 , 141 ]. Perceived differences combined with labeling processes may promote the infra-humanization or dehumanization of others, i.e., a diminished attribution and consideration of their mental states [ 142 , 143 ].

Finally, people’s motives and goals affect perception, information processing and affective states including the willingness to empathize and shaping behavioral responses towards others [ 125 , 144 , 145 ]. In general, people are motivated to avoid highly distressing situations and to downregulate costly empathy, engaging in different strategies such as avoiding distressing situations that might trigger empathy, shifting their attention away from potentially affective stimuli or modifying their cognitive evaluations [ 146 , 147 ]. Devaluating others’ minds and emotions reduces empathy and justifies harming or killing others by minimizing their capacity to suffer or derogating them as deserving of this suffering [ 142 ].

In conclusion, the human ability to empathize and its variations depend on a complex interaction between different factors. Interestingly, many of these factors also appear to account for empathy towards animals and its variations [ 148 ], and it has been suggested that they could be associated [ 149 ].

Empathy towards animals seems to have originated in a similar way as that shown towards other humans [ 150 , 151 ]. It has been proposed that animal-directed empathy may generalize to human-directed empathy [ 152 ] and that the amount of empathy towards animals may indicate a more general capacity for empathy and related prosocial behavior [ 153 ].

Empathy towards animals could be a psychological “side effect” of adaptive empathy towards humans, triggered by animals’ signals, behaviors and physical characteristics that resemble those promoting empathy and caring towards humans, particularly infants [ 154 , 155 ]. Empathy probably evolved in the context of parental care, and its affective component covaries with the cute response elicited by the “baby schema” [ 56 , 126 , 154 , 156 ]. Infant-like animals trigger empathic responses and various studies have linked cuteness to increased empathy and compassion [ 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 ] and caretaking [ 161 , 162 ]. There is evidence, for example, that humans find one-day-old chicks, kittens and puppies cute and value nonhuman faces with infant features, such as those of puppies and kittens, as attractive as baby faces [ 17 , 56 , 77 , 163 , 164 ]. The existence of a biological mechanism deeply rooted in parenting that could account for empathy towards animals is also suggested by the large diffusion of pet-keeping and interspecific nurturant behavior, which are general human traits [ 42 , 77 , 154 ].

Human and animal-oriented empathy share several features including a gender effect, with women being more empathetic towards animals [ 13 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 113 , 114 , 136 ] and less likely to engage in animal cruelty than men [ 29 , 165 , 166 ], and a similarity and familiarity effect, which are good predictors of empathy for wildlife, farm animals and companion animals [ 55 , 140 ].

The similarity bias has been observed at different levels including phylogenetic closeness, physical appearance, behavior and infant-like features. The greater the similarity of a species with humans, the larger the empathic response, detected both through self-report and psychophysiological measures [ 60 , 140 , 167 ]. Westbury and Neumann [ 140 ] used film stimuli depicting humans, primates, quadruped mammals and birds in victimized circumstances and found higher subjective empathy ratings and physiological responses (i.e., skin conductance) as the stimuli became closer in phylogenetic relatedness to humans, with an effect of animal type (i.e., human, primate, companion mammal, utilitarian mammal and bird).

Familiarity with animals allows people to establish emotional bonds with them and facilitates the understanding that animals are living organisms, allowing to directly perceive the similarities between us and them, which are essential to empathize with them. For example, Morris et al. [ 168 ] reported an association between familiarity with animals in terms of ownership and beliefs about emotions (both primary and secondary) in animals and the animal mind in general.

Although most studies do not really differentiate between the affective and cognitive components of animal-oriented empathy, the ability to recognize animal emotions and to appreciate their communicative aims could be ascribed to the latter one. The capacity to correctly detect signs of pain and distress in animals is at the basis of animal welfare in companion and farm animals [ 169 , 170 ]. However, people’s capacity to recognize and understand animals’ emotional experiences and attempting to view situations from their perspective has variable levels of accuracy: when trying to “think like an animal”, humans tend to project human thoughts, feelings and attributes onto animals, often without sufficient experience or knowledge of the animal’s real biological and ethological needs, cognitions, emotions and behaviors [ 148 ].

Bradshaw and Paul [ 154 ] suggested that anthropomorphism is an expression of the cognitive component of interspecific empathy, and [ 13 ] reported significant correlations between anthropomorphic beliefs and empathy towards animals, suggesting that anthropomorphic interpretations could facilitate perspective taking and, consequently, the affective empathic reaction. However, anthropomorphism may also hinder people’s ability to “accurately” empathize with animals, leading to incorrect and flawed cognitive empathy with adverse effects for both animals and people [ 148 ].

Both human-directed and animal-directed empathy are modulated by contextual, social and cultural factors as well as by individual differences and experiences, which interact in a complex way with biological predispositions. For example, some human psychological traits, such as a need for power and hostility, are negatively related to empathy towards animals. The need for power leads to a utilitarian view of people and animals as a means for self-gratification rather than as living beings worthy of respect and concern, whereas hostility causes a temporary reduction in empathy, enhancing aggressions and reducing sensitivity to animal suffering and maltreatment [ 171 , 172 ]. There is also evidence that a lack of empathy is a characteristic of the psychological trait labeled as “callous and unemotional” and an association between “callousness” and animal abuse during childhood and adolescence has been reported [ 173 , 174 ].

Education and cultural background play an important role in fostering empathy towards animals. Paul and Podberscek [ 136 ] found that veterinary education affected students’ attitudes and empathy towards animals and that veterinary students in their later years rated the sentience of animals as lower than those in their earlier years. Similarly, a difference in empathy towards animals in Italian veterinary students was reported in [ 33 ], with first-year students scoring significantly higher than those at the end of their academic training. The decrease in empathy over time emerged in both male and female students, but females always had higher empathy scores than males. In addition, veterinary students at the end of their course reported a more instrumental attitude towards animals and a reduction in the perception of human–animal continuity, more evident in males than females.

The values, ideologies and social practices typical of a culture together with the social status attributed to animals affect the development of empathy and its behavioral expressions [ 175 ]. What is common to most cultures is the ambivalence towards nonhuman–animals, which are relegated to different cultural categories based upon species, for example, “food”, “companion”, “research tool” or “wildlife” [ 176 ]. Pallotta [ 176 ] noticed that young children are oblivious to the moral distinctions among different species of animals, which are learned during the socialization process; through normal socialization, children learn to place boundaries between themselves and all other animals and between different species of animals in terms of norms, emotions and moral treatment, and to canalize their empathy towards conspecifics and species with a higher social status.

Childhood socialization and cultural conditioning are generally mediated by parents; thus, attitudes and empathy towards animals are developed at first in the family setting through parental modeling: for example, children and adolescents often begin to abuse animals by reproducing the behavior of a parent who exerts a violent and coercive “discipline” on pets [ 152 ].

Finally, various studies indicate an association between violence towards animals and a lack or suppression of animal-directed empathy [ 28 , 152 ], with empathy representing a mediating factor in aggression towards both humans and animals [ 107 ]. Even though no mental disease has been specifically related to a lack of empathy towards animals, “hurting animals” is included among the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder, and the last version of the DSM (2013) includes a psychological disorder, animal hoarding, which has been related to impairment of empathy and attachment towards animals [ 11 , 99 , 177 , 178 ].

4.2. Attachment

“It is certain that associated animals [i.e., those living together in social groups] have a feeling of love for each other which is not felt by adult and non-social animals.” Charles Darwin (1871). The Descent of Man, Vol. 1, p. 76

Forming emotional bonds and attachments with significant others is a typical characteristic of human beings and represents a profound need with biological bases and evolutionary roots [ 179 , 180 , 181 , 182 ]. The need for bonding is shared by various nonhuman species, particularly social animals: mammals but also birds may form intense, long-lasting emotional bonds and attachments in the context of the parent–offspring relationship and in reproductive relationships between unrelated adults. In addition, there is evidence of friendship bonds between unrelated adult individuals of the same group; such bonds have been observed in nonhuman primates, dogs, horses, cows and even crows [ 18 , 19 , 183 ].

Emotional and attachment bonds go beyond the species boundaries, fostering significant, reciprocal interspecific relationships including the human–animal bond. Some studies show that people form strong affective bonds with their companion animals, reporting attachment to them and often viewing them as family members or even children [ 14 , 184 , 185 ]. Experimental evidence shows that dogs and cats form affectional bonds and even attachments with their human partners [ 24 , 186 , 187 , 188 , 189 , 190 ].

The human–animal bond implies emotional, psychological and physical interactions between people, animals and the environment, and according to [ 191 ], well-developed bonds are relationships between a human and an individual animal that are reciprocal, persistent and tend to promote well-being for both parties.

The concept of attachment, developed in the context of human interpersonal relationships, appears to fit well [ 191 ] the definition of the human–animal bond, capturing its different aspects. This concept was initially used by the psychologist J. Bowlby, within his ethological theory, to explain the nature of the bond that develops between human infants and their mother/caregiver [ 192 , 193 , 194 ]. Since then, attachment theory has been broadened to include other types of human relationships across the life span such as close friendships and romantic relationships [ 195 ]; more recently, it became a framework for investigating the human–animal bond [ 14 , 24 , 25 , 184 ].

In Bowlby’s perspective, attachment is a particular emotional bond that a person or animal establishes throughout life with another individual perceived as stronger or wiser [ 180 , 192 ]. Attachment bonds endure over time, are emotionally significant, are directed to a specific individual (attachment figure) and trigger proximity, contact seeking and distress reactions when unwanted or prolonged separations occur. Attached individuals seek security and comfort in the relationship with their partner, which serves both as a “secure base” from which to move off to navigate the world and as a “safe haven” to go back to in times of distress [ 180 , 181 ]. Attachment behaviors are species specific and organized into an attachment behavioral system that is activated to elicit appropriate caregiving responses [ 181 , 192 , 196 ].

In humans, attachment plays a key role throughout an individual’s lifespan, with either positive or negative effects on interpersonal relationships [ 197 ] and on interspecific ones [ 185 , 198 ]. According to attachment theory, early experiences with primary caregivers (parents or other “attachment figures”) affect an individuals’ future interpersonal relationships and stress regulation modalities through internal mental representations (or internal working models) of themselves, others and self–other relationships. In childhood, adolescence and adulthood, internal working models determine the degree to which individuals view themselves as lovable and deserving affection and others as trustworthy, reliable and affectively responsive [ 193 , 196 , 199 ]. Internal working models appear to mediate the link between attachment, empathy and prosocial behavior [ 196 , 199 ].

If caregivers are responsive and sensitive in distressing situations, the individual develops a secure attachment, which is associated with positive representations of self and others, the ability to manage distress, a sense of comfort with autonomy and the formation of relationships with others; attachment security promotes prosocial attitudes and empathy and has been associated to a better mental health both in adolescence and adulthood ([ 200 ]; see [ 201 ] for a meta-analysis).

Insecure attachment develops when individuals face insensitive or unresponsive caregivers [ 196 , 199 ]. An insecure anxious attachment is associated with negative models of self and a highly demanding interpersonal style, combined with fear of rejection and high levels of negative affect. Attachment anxiety is associated to the inhibition of empathy and the strengthening of personal distress, as anxiously attached individuals are too self-focused to provide help to another person [ 200 ]. Conversely, insecure avoidant attachment is associated with a negative image of others, defensive minimization of affect, interpersonal hostility and social withdrawal [ 202 , 203 ], and it appears related to the inhibition of both empathy and personal distress. When attachment figures are intimidating, unpredictable or frightening, the individual may develop a “disorganized attachment” [ 204 ] that leads to controlling behaviors that can be either hostile/punitive or solicitous/caregiving, affecting beliefs and behaviors towards people and animals and predisposing to personality disorders [ 205 ].

Insecure and disorganized attachments may favor compensatory defensive maneuvers that influence the caregiving system, have negative consequences on the individual’s well-being and mental health [ 206 , 207 ] and represent a risk factor for delinquency [ 208 ] and animal abuse and cruelty [ 106 , 209 ].

Studies on the human–animal bond based on the attachment theory indicate that the human–companion animal bond is an attachment-based relationship in terms of proximity, comfort seeking and separation distress but also as regards “safe haven” and “secure base” effects. This evidence extends the concept of “attachment figure” beyond the domain of human relationships to nonhuman social partners that, although unable to provide advice or focused support, can provide stability, tenderness, closeness, authenticity and absence of judgment [ 25 , 184 , 198 ].

Even though caregiving, protection and reassurance are usually provided by humans, the human–animal bond appears to be a more flexible attachment–caregiver relationship in which the human and the animal can play the role of “caregivers” or “cared for” according to the situation [ 14 ]. Companion animals may serve as “attachment figures” for people [ 182 , 184 , 185 , 198 ], and both dogs and cats form infant-like attachment bonds with humans, who are for them a source of protection and reassurance [ 24 , 186 , 188 , 189 ].

Indeed, several features of companion animals, such as their availability for direct physical contact, responsiveness to interactions and affection represent a strong basis for the attachment bond with the owner [ 182 ]. Zilcha-Mano et al. [ 185 ] showed that dogs or cats can serve the two main regulatory functions of an attachment figure: providing a “safe haven” and a secure base; however, a pet’s capacity to provide a safe haven and a secure base depends on individual differences in attachment orientations towards a pet, as found in interpersonal relationships.

The nature and structure of human–animal attachment appears to be similar to interpersonal attachment, with a significant association between security and insecurity in human–animal and interpersonal human relationships [ 105 , 198 ]. For example, an anxious human–animal attachment (i.e., pet attachment anxiety) was found to be associated with greater emotional distress and poorer mental health, ambivalence, pervasive worry for the integrity of the animal, doubt regarding owner’s worth for the animal [ 198 ] and a higher tendency for pathological grief [ 210 ]. Conversely, an avoidant human–animal attachment (or pet attachment avoidance) was associated with lower emotional distress, a relative indifference towards the animal’s integrity and needs [ 211 ], negative expectancies regarding the animal, a lower level of trust in the animal and a tendency to distance oneself from the animal [ 198 ]. Rusu et al. [ 212 ] reported the existence of significant positive correlations between pet attachment anxiety and interpersonal attachment anxiety and between pet attachment avoidance and interpersonal attachment avoidance in pet owners.

Notably, attachment difficulties with primary caregivers and attachment dysfunctions in adulthood are associated with cruelty and abuse towards animals [ 108 , 209 ], and several studies show that in animal hoarding, animal suffering and neglect may occur in conjunction with a strong distorted attachment to animals [ 11 , 213 ].

Attachment to animals is associated with empathy, attitudes and prosocial behavior towards them [ 13 , 39 ] and with anthropomorphism [ 65 , 212 , 214 ]. Rusu et al. [ 212 ] assessed the relationship between interpersonal and human–animal dimensions of attachment (i.e., anxiety and avoidance), empathy towards animals and anthropomorphism in owners of different types of pets (mainly dogs) and found that the level of anthropomorphism was positively associated with pet attachment anxiety and empathy towards animals and negatively associated with pet attachment avoidance. The authors suggested that animals may become emotional substitutes mainly for people with anxious attachment and worries about separation and abandonment who, in turn, attend more to the needs of their pets. Conversely, people scoring higher on avoidance in significant interpersonal relationships tended to be less attuned to the needs of their pets. Attachment anxiety and avoidance have been also reported to affect the decision to adopt a pet and the nature of the human–animal relationship such as the time spent with the pet and the perceived security of the bond with the pet [ 215 ].

Sociodemographic and cultural factors modulate attachment to animals both in terms of how attached people are and to which animals they become attached. Gender differences have been reported in various studies, with women showing higher attachment levels than men [ 12 , 216 ] and being more prone to providing verbal comfort and caregiving when their companion animals are distressed after a separation [ 217 ]. Cultural norms and beliefs towards nonhuman animals and anthropomorphism also appear to play a role in affecting attachment to and caring for animals [ 12 , 218 , 219 ].

4.3. Anthropomorphism

“Believe me, I am not mistakenly assigning human properties to animals; on the contrary, I am showing you what an enormous inheritance remains in man to this day.” K. Lorenz, King Solomon’s Ring, 1952 p. 152.

It has been suggested that anthropomorphism is a key aspect in the formation of the human–animal bond and the practice of pet keeping, since it allows people to identify and address the needs and the psychological states of animals in a context of reciprocal beneficial interaction [ 149 , 214 ]. Even today anthropomorphism may have a positive role in fostering human–animal relationships and in promoting animal welfare, due to its power to affect the way in which people perceive, interact with, and respond to animals [ 104 , 220 , 221 , 222 ].

In the psychological literature, anthropomorphism has been defined as the human tendency to see human characteristics or mental states in nonhuman agents, either natural entities, objects or nonhuman animals, attributing them human intentions, motivations, goals or emotions [ 143 , 223 ]. Anthropomorphizing animals entails attributing them behaviors, personalities, mental abilities, emotions and intentions that are human like. Thus, it can be viewed as an anthropocentric bias in which humans use themselves as a benchmark for interpreting animal behavior [ 224 , 225 ]. Anthropomorphizing implies making more or less accurate inferences regarding others’ characteristics (e.g., affirming that a dog is feeling guilty) based on one’s own egocentric experience or on knowledge regarding humans in general [ 65 , 143 , 224 ]. Most animal scientists are highly concerned about the risks of anthropomorphizing, yet an anthropomorphic approach is invariably applied by people, and it has been proposed that it could be applied in ways that are useful to scientific inquiry and to the animals themselves [ 226 , 227 ].

It has been suggested that anthropomorphism evolved in humans due to the fact of its adaptive function to use self-knowledge to explain and anticipate other humans’ behavior [ 228 , 229 ]. According to [ 228 ], the propensity to attribute characteristics of our species to other animals is a feature of modern humans that emerged through natural selection approximately 40,000 years ago to favor our ancestors in hunting, making it more successful. In addition to enabling humans to predict and anticipate the behavior of prey animals, anthropomorphizing also encouraged the development of empathy for hunted animals and their offspring [ 103 , 154 ], which were then adopted and cared for, laying the foundations for the domestication of some species and the emergence of affectional relationships with animals.

Anthropomorphism is associated to concern over another nonhuman agent’s well-being and a greater likelihood of treating that agent as human [ 143 ], and there is a link between anthropomorphism, empathy and attachment towards nonhuman agents, particularly animals [ 13 , 103 , 212 ]. Thus, attributing human-like mental characteristics (i.e., emotions, cognitions and sentience) and features (e.g., human-like “face” or movements) to animals may strongly affect the way we consider and treat them and the moral concern we have for them [ 60 , 64 , 223 ].

Although widespread worldwide, the tendency to anthropomorphize animals is neither invariant nor stable: children are more prone to anthropomorphize than adults, some people anthropomorphize more than other people, some situations promote anthropomorphic beliefs more than others, and anthropomorphic descriptions of animals are more common in some cultures than others [ 65 , 143 ].

It has been outlined [ 65 , 143 ] that human anthropomorphism includes cognitive and motivational components and is modulated by individual factors (e.g., need for control and chronic loneliness), situational variables (e.g., perceived similarity and social disconnection), developmental factors (e.g., attachment and acquisition of alternative knowledges) and cultural aspects (e.g., norms, ideologies, individualism or collectivism).

Anthropomorphic thinking provides a sense of social contact and connection and satisfies the human need to deal with uncertainty and feel efficacious [ 65 , 143 ]. Humans are highly motivated to maintain social connection with others, and there is a strong association between morbidity–mortality and social connection [ 230 ]. People who feel lonely or chronically lack social connection with other humans may try to compensate by creating a sense of human connection with nonhuman agents, anthropomorphizing them; animals, particularly companion animals, such as dogs and cats, are easily anthropomorphized, since they show complex behaviors and may engage in active relationships and communication with humans [ 71 , 214 ]. Individuals who report feeling lonelier provide higher evaluations of the supportive anthropomorphic traits of their pets (e.g., thoughtful and sympathetic) than those who feel more socially connected [ 65 ], and the likelihood of attributing human-like mental states or traits to pets appears to be greater if individuals, in an experimental setting, are induced to experience a state of loneliness or social disconnection than if they are not [ 231 ].

Anthropomorphism also provides a practical way to interpret others’ behavior, particularly when alternative knowledge (e.g., science or culture) is lacking. Epley et al. [ 65 ] asked adult participants to look at a short video in which two dogs interacted with each other and one dog appeared less predictable than the other in behavior; then, participants were asked to rate the extent to which each dog was aware of its emotions, had a conscious will, had a “personality” and their similarity to humans. Participants with high scores in desire for control anthropomorphized the unpredictable dog more than those with low scores.

There is evidence of a relationship between anthropomorphism, attachment and attachment styles: people with insecure–anxious attachment styles with close others may compensate by seeking more secure or stable relationships from nonhumans agents, and companion animals provide stable, affectionate and nonjudgmental relationships [ 143 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 ].

Other variables that affect anthropomorphism are perceived similarity and phylogenetic relatedness to humans: people attribute mental states to animals that most resemble them physically or behaviorally or are perceived as more related to them [ 143 , 236 , 237 , 238 , 239 ]. Basic mental states and abilities are attributed more easily to a wide range of animals than complex mental states or higher cognitive abilities [ 239 , 240 ]. Similarly, primary emotions (i.e., fear, joy, surprise, sadness, anger and disgust) are attributed more frequently to a wider range of animals than secondary emotions (e.g., embarrassment, guilt, empathy, pride and jealousy) [ 224 ]. However, it has also been outlined that people perceive human characteristics in animals during interactions with them and within specific interactional settings [ 241 , 242 ]. This suggests that anthropomorphism would not depend just on the characteristics of a given animal but also on the kind of interaction and relationship between the person and the animal [ 242 ].

Arluke [ 243 ] provides several examples from biomedical laboratories, showing that an animal, for example, a rat or a dog, may be considered either an object or a pet depending on the kinds of actions in which humans involve them. The author highlights that animals may be strategically deprived of their individuality and expressive capacities using de-anthropomorphizing strategies aimed to objectify them (e.g., cages, codes and avoiding giving them a name). De-individualizing animals, treating them as a collective entity and labeling them with a code not only facilitates the redefinition of the animal’s nature but also materially prevents laboratory workers from seeing them as individuals. Similar strategies aimed at keeping animals in the “right perceptual frames” are adopted in intense farming to prevent developing familiarity, relationships and even attachment to them.

Experience and culture affect anthropomorphism by providing different norms and ideologies regarding how people relate to others, the natural world and animals, by influencing the general level of experience with certain animals and by the acquisition of nonanthropomorphic knowledge [ 12 , 143 , 218 , 219 ]. In less developed and rural populations, children show relatively little anthropomorphism when reasoning about local nonhuman animals [ 244 ]; individuals from more industrialized cultures think about nonhuman animals mainly based on their anthropocentric knowledge, whereas individuals from less industrialized cultures use their knowledge about the animal’s world. Finally, in individualistic cultures, an individuals’ egocentric perspective is used more readily than in collectivistic cultures [ 245 ].

Anthropomorphism has either positive or negative effects on human–animal relationships and animal well-being [ 69 , 103 , 104 , 221 ]. The tendency to anthropomorphize can promote positive relationships with animals, favoring attachment and empathy towards them [ 103 , 104 , 246 ]. However, anthropomorphism may also lead people to an anthropocentric and inaccurate understanding of animal’s mental abilities and to ascribe them cognitive and emotional capacities, intentions and needs they do not have, causing misunderstandings, unrealistic expectancies or disregard for their real needs and characteristics [ 69 , 224 ].

Various anthropomorphic practices result to be detrimental for companion animals’ well-being and health [ 69 ] and there is evidence that animal directed anthropomorphic behaviors and practices may be driven by temporary fashions or by different self-centered motivations, as the need for control, loneliness, satisfaction of one’s social needs and emotional attachment [ 8 , 12 ]. For example, the selection of specific physical and behavioral traits that favor the attribution of human mental states to nonhumans may transform companion animals (especially dogs and cats) in appealing but handicapped and unhealthy individuals [ 103 ]. Brachycephalic breeds are just an example of this dark side of anthropomorphism in which the exasperate selection for “cute” and infant-like body traits causes severe health problems and a poor level of well-being. Despite the well-documented unhealthy conditions of brachycephalic breeds, their owners are less influenced by breed-related health problems and reduced longevity compared with nonbrachycephalic dog owners in the decision to adopt a dog [ 93 , 247 ].

People view and treat nonhuman animals in line with classifications (e.g., companion animals, profit-making animals and wild animals) based upon ascribed similarity/difference with humans [ 248 , 249 ]; this entails different levels of anthropomorphizing. There is evidence that when people stop attributing human-like characteristics to other humans, they dehumanize them, treating them as nonhuman animals or even objects, and harming or killing them becomes easily accepted [ 142 ]. Similarly, anthropomorphic attributions affect the moral status given to animals and human moral concern towards them. Those that are believed to be more human-like are typically afforded greater moral consideration and better treatment than the others [ 63 , 64 , 240 ].

Although reasons for cruelty and abuse towards animals are wide ranging and complex [ 250 , 251 ] and with no specific reference to anthropomorphism, they have been traced back to the need for control over animals, prejudices against a particular species or breed and to simple dislike for an animal [ 252 ]. Some studies also found a significant positive association between anthropomorphism, hoarding behaviors and emotional attachment to possessions [ 234 , 253 , 254 ], and although the relationship between animal hoarding and anthropomorphism has scarcely been investigated, there is some evidence (e.g., [ 235 ]) that animal hoarders tend to anthropomorphize animals to a greater extent compared to non-hoarder animal owners.

5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond

Animal hoarding is a highly dysfunctional and pathological form of human–animal relationship, which has been defined by Patronek [ 11 ] as “the third dimension of animal abuse”, since it entails substantial and protracted animal maltreatment and suffering. Due to the fact of its characteristics, it cannot be easily incorporated into the two well-recognized categories of animal cruelty: deliberate animal abuse and neglect [ 11 ]. Indeed, in animal hoarding, animals are exposed to considerable physical and psychological suffering, but often there is a strong human–animal bond, with considerable impairment also of the hoarder’s welfare, who may lack insight regarding the real situation.

Since early reports [ 177 , 255 ], it has clearly emerged that the association between severe animal suffering and a strong attachment to animals was in contradiction with the existing evidence on the human–animal bond [ 11 , 213 , 256 ]. The evidence that has emerged so far invites scholars to an in-depth reflection on the boundaries between the “normal” and pathological aspects of the human–animal relationship and the mechanisms involved [ 8 , 99 ]. For a long time, hoarding animals was considered a “lifestyle” typical of bizarre and strange animal lovers, mainly women, but now it is considered a form of animal abuse, and in recent years, it has been recognized as a mental disorder acknowledged in the DSM-5 as a form of hoarding disorder (i.e., animal hoarding disorder (AHD) [ 257 ], although with its own characteristics and peculiarities.

Hoarding disorder (HD), or compulsive hoarding, is characterized at the behavioral level by problematic behaviors of accumulation, a persistent and considerable difficulty in discarding ordinary items, squalor, personal neglect and poor insight into such disruptive behavior. Hoarding behavior prevents the ordinary use of living spaces in the home, causing significant distress and impairing everyday functioning [ 257 , 258 , 259 ]. HD has been associated to various factors such as interpersonal conflicts, health issues [ 260 ], anxiety-based disorders, depression, family and social disabilities, progressive functional deficit [ 261 ], social isolation and difficulties in bonding with other people [ 262 ]. In addition, an association with cognitive deficits in attention, memory and executive functions (e.g., planning, decision-making and inhibitory control) has been reported [ 263 , 264 , 265 ]. Finally, compulsive hoarding is characterized by a problematic emotional attachment to possessions [ 258 , 266 , 267 ]. According to a psychological cognitive model, this emotional attachment has three specific aspects: possessions provide comfort and security, possessions have human-like qualities and possessions represent an extension of self-concept [ 266 , 268 ].

Animal hoarding (AHD), in its great complexity, appears to have common characteristics with object hoarding including possible underlying cognitive impairments [ 265 ], anxiety, depression, social isolation and relational difficulties [ 269 , 270 ]. However, there is a growing consensus that animal hoarding differs in several respects from object hoarding, the most striking being probably that animal hoarders accumulate living, sentient beings that, differently from objects, need interaction and attention and require continuous nurturing and care. Animal hoarding appears to entail distortions and dysfunctions in attachment, empathy and anthropomorphism and shows how characteristics and motivations that, in general, foster and maintain long-lasting positive relationships with animals may jeopardize the human–animal relationship, causing suffering for both animals and humans [ 99 , 178 , 235 ].

Animal hoarding occurs when an individual persistently accumulates an unusually large number of animals and fails to provide them with the minimum standards of nutrition, hygiene and veterinary care, exposing them to psychological and physical suffering due to the fact of a seriously distorted relationship with them [ 99 , 271 ].

Hoarders often fail to recognize and act on the deteriorated conditions of the animals (e.g., disease, starvation and death), the severe overcrowding, the lack of hygiene of the home environment, and they are often unaware of the negative effects that the hoarding of animals has their own well-being and on that of others living close to them [ 177 , 272 , 273 , 274 ]. Squalid living conditions are common including extreme soiling, parasites, litter, precarious waste, accumulation of feces and urine, nonfunctioning bathrooms and other living spaces, and even dead animals left where they died or are stored [ 11 , 275 ]. Thus, animal hoarding is a multifaceted problem that includes animal maltreatment and abuse, problems related to the health and mental health of hoarders, safety and social and occupational functioning [ 177 , 255 ].

It is worth noting that what defines the disorder is not just the number of animals but the inability of the owner to provide the minimum necessary care for them, to recognize their suffering and to provide them with appropriate sanitary conditions [ 177 , 235 , 276 , 277 , 278 ]. Animal hoarders’ difficulty in relinquishing animals to people who can more adequately care for them is another key point: despite highly negative conditions they form excessive attachments to their animals, consider them like children [ 279 ] and feel the urge to save and care for them, even if this results in significant impairment. They also exhibit intense distress when the animals are removed from their care [ 235 , 266 , 275 ].

Despite its complexity and the highly negative impact on both animals and people, animal hoarding has long been underestimated both within and outside the academic community; however, recently, interest has grown in different research areas such as mental health, psychiatric disorders, human–animal relationships and veterinary practice [ 99 , 272 , 280 , 281 , 282 ].

Animal hoarding is not limited to a specific culture or country, and in addition to the US, it has been reported in various countries, including the UK [ 283 ], Canada [ 278 , 284 ], Australia [ 274 , 285 ], Serbia [ 286 ], Spain [ 273 ], Italy [ 281 ], and Brazil [ 276 , 287 ], and can represent a significant problem [ 265 , 272 , 288 ]. For example, [ 288 ] evaluated the situation of animal hoarding in Germany, reporting 120 animal hoarding cases between 2012 and 2015 for a total of 9174 hoarded animals, mainly cats, dogs and small mammals. The highest number of accumulated animals was documented in [ 281 ] in Italy, with a total of 450 hoarded animals.

Some reviews of the literature provide a portrait of the main characteristics of animal hoarders and the factors that may be involved in the emergence of the disorder [ 99 , 282 , 289 ]. Overall, the studies outline that animal hoarding is a chronic disorder that progressively deteriorates [ 273 , 274 ]. As regards an animal hoarder’s characteristics, the literature shows that the disorder is more frequent among women, who constitute, on average, between 70% and 83% of animal hoarders [ 99 , 282 , 289 ]. This rate has been confirmed in most of the reported hoarding cases (e.g., [ 265 , 273 , 285 , 290 ]). Although the reasons for this gender effect have not yet been ascertained, it could be related to the greater predisposition of women to empathize with animals and to be attracted by the infantile characteristics typical of most pets, especially dogs and cats, which are in fact the species most involved in hoarding situations. Gender differences in attitudes, empathy and attachment and concern towards animals have also been well documented in the literature on the “bright side” of the human–animal bond [ 13 , 29 ].

Individuals showing animal hoarding are reported to be socially isolated, in their fifties or sixties, on average, when identified [ 265 , 273 , 274 , 276 , 285 ] and in approximately 70% of the cases are single, divorced or widowed [ 265 , 276 ]. Studies also show that hoarders are often unemployed or retired but may also be breeders who initially bred animals for economic reasons [ 274 , 276 , 285 , 290 , 291 ]. However, the phenomenon emerges in all demographic socioeconomic conditions [ 99 , 282 , 289 ]; even individuals who are well integrated into society may be affected (e.g., health care workers, public employees, lawyers and veterinarians), and not uncommonly hoarders live with people who depend on them, including children, people with disabilities or elderly people, who may find themselves sharing the same living conditions as the animals being accumulated.

Three main types of animal hoarders have been described in the literature, who show different characteristics and different levels of severity [ 177 , 292 ]. These characteristics regard the presence of medical/psychological problems, involvement in society, awareness of the problem, attitude towards authority and risks for animals but also attachment to animals, empathy towards them and the tendency to anthropomorphize them [ 99 , 235 ].

The “overwhelmed caregivers” [ 177 , 292 ] are usually lonely people with a strong attachment to and empathy for animals, who initially provide proper care to them but eventually become overwhelmed due to the fact of difficulties such as illness, economic problems or a bereavement. Their self-esteem is linked to the role of caregiver, and they often adopt animals in a passive way (people give them animals knowing they love them). These hoarders may have mood disorders but show a certain level of awareness of their problems, respect authority and are cooperative.

For “rescue hoarders” [ 177 , 292 ], saving animals is a mission and they are convinced they are the only ones who can provide adequate care to them. These hoarders have a need to acquire animals actively, adopting them from shelters or through flyers or social networks. After rescuing animals, these hoarders prevent their adoption, are afraid they could die and are opposed to euthanasia even when seeing them suffering and healing them is impossible. Thus, the number of animals gradually overwhelms their capacity to provide the minimal care. They are not necessarily isolated but may have a network of helpers that provide them animals to care for. Indeed, these hoarders may be found among people working in rescue shelters or in veterinary clinics, who believe they can save all animals by taking them home [ 291 ]. These types of hoarders avoids authorities and/or impedes their access, making the solution to the problem difficult.

The last type reported in the literature is the “exploiter hoarders” [ 177 , 292 ], who acquires animals to serve their own needs (e.g., absolute control and demonstration of expertise). They lack empathy for people/animals, are indifferent to the harm caused to animals or people and are frequently manipulative and devise strategies to avoid controls. They tend to deny the problem and reject concerns from any authorities over the animals’ care. However, it has been outlined that exploitative hoarding is often associated with sociopathic traits or personality disorders, either narcissistic or antisocial, that resemble much more those of people who engage in criminal behavior and animal abuse and cruelty.

Overall, the literature indicates that a hoarder’s story begins with relatively few animals, and that gradually, the situation deteriorates through the continual acquisition of animals (actively or passively) despite a lack of money and time for them, avoidance of sterilization, insufficient veterinary care and the struggle to keep the house sufficiently clean. The incipient hoarder and the breeder–hoarder are considered intermediate stages that may evolve over time into full-blown hoarding [ 292 , 293 ]. Different from an incipient hoarder, a breeder initially keeps animals for shows or to sell but over time finds it increasingly difficult to care for them properly. They do not always keep the animals in their own home; thus, their living conditions may not always be as neglected as those of the animals. However, this is not the rule, since many hoarders set-up home breeding. They usually have only a moderate awareness of the state of the animals and their ability to care for them; thus, they continue to raise them.

Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding

In general, animal hoarders show a highly dysfunctional relationship with animals, characterized by distorted overattachment to them, empathy disfunction and a high level of anthropomorphism [ 99 , 235 , 289 ]. Their behavior, especially that of incipient hoarders, overwhelmed caregivers and rescue hoarders, is most often rooted in a real desire to take care of animals or save them and is characterized by a strong emotional attachment to animals and an extreme distress, often genuine despair, at the idea of being separated from them. Patronek and Nathanson [ 294 ] reported that when attempting to account for their behavior, these hoarders often mention their love for animals. However, the situation degenerates from helping into a form of abuse such that, even though the intent is not to harm animals, severe and prolonged suffering is caused to them [ 275 ].

In most hoarding situations, the emotional attachment to animals, which is a basic aspect of the human–animal relationship, is distorted, formed with many individuals and immediately triggered to the point that any animal encountered can be easily seen as one’s own and the individual feels obliged to take care of it [ 295 ].

It could be hypothesized that empathy (in particular affective empathy) could be the initial mechanism that makes these people sensitive to the needs and suffering of animals, motivating them to take care of them; however, when facing the evidence of their inability to care for animals properly, a denial process would take place to protect their sense of identity and self-esteem, both strongly rooted in the link with animals, in the belief of a special connection with them and in the presumed ability to take care of them. Furthermore, empathy could decrease as a result of exposure to suffering due to the fact of habituation and/or to avoid an excessive level of personal distress or even to dealing with many individuals and a reduction in personal contact [ 134 , 135 ]. Conversely, “exploiter hoarders” generally lack empathy for animals and people, being more similar to people with an antisocial personality and who exhibit such behavior and are prone to animal abuse, in whom empathy towards animals and people is compromised in some way [ 118 , 296 ].

Hoarders also tend to anthropomorphize animals to a greater extent compared to ordinary animal owners. Steketee et al. [ 235 ] observed that 81% of animal hoarders (compared to 27% of owners) tended to ascribe to them the same characteristics and intelligence of humans and to view them as their “children”. In fact, they often report a strong attachment to their animals and consider them to be like children [ 279 ]. This often results in a distorted sense of responsibility and a strong need for control over the animals, whereby the hoarders feel that they must acquire animals and should not separate from them to ensure that nothing bad happens to them.

In “rescuer hoarders”, these aspects would be strongly linked to the problem of death: they appear to consider the deterioration of their living conditions as a necessary sacrifice to help creatures in need, who might otherwise die [ 295 ], and some of them explicitly state that they would like to create shelters that do not include euthanasia [ 297 ]. Thus, there is a real urge to rescue animals, which is experienced as a duty, leads to a strong sense of guilt if disregarded and is linked to the constant concern that something terrible could occur to the animals if they were not helped (e.g., being hit by a car or ending up in a vivisection laboratory) [ 295 ]. Since animals, as all living beings do, die and separation from them is inevitable, anxiety relative to control and responsibility is further enhanced in hoarders [ 294 ]. These individuals may have intense emotional reactions of anger or distress triggered by thoughts of loss or separation [ 264 ] and often are unable to separate themselves from the bodies of dead animals, keeping them inside the house [ 177 , 255 , 275 ]. Based on these extreme reactions of separation-related distress and anger, Reference [ 298 ] hypothesized that the propensity of animal hoarders to ignore the problems arising from acquiring an increasing number of animals and to convince themselves that the animals are well might be a way to avoid the unpleasant feelings that would result from giving animals up for adoption or from acknowledging the severely poor conditions of their animals.

Emotional attachment, concern for animals and empathy are less explanatory in the case of “exploiter hoarders”, whose motivations for hoarding could be linked to a need to dominate and control or to financial interest (especially in the case of anti-social personalities) or to the desire to establish relationships that confirm their value, in which other individuals (in this case animals) have the role of self-objects, serving to ensure attentions and adoration (in narcissists; [ 292 ]). Similar motivations, however, can be observed in a far more nuanced form also in so called “normal” non abusive human–animal relationships [ 8 , 88 , 94 , 299 ].

For animal hoarders, animals also have an instrumental role, which is functional to the preservation of their sense of identity and self-esteem, associated with the role of caregiver and is constantly reinforced by the perception of having positive relationships with living beings that are sentient and totally dependent [ 294 , 295 ]. Self-esteem would derive partly from the sense of self-efficacy—through the control over the animals (especially in the exploiter) and in part by seeing recognized their ability as caregivers through the affection received by the animals, [ 294 , 300 ]. However, the primary source of self-esteem is the interaction within the human–animal relationship: animals are highly focused on the person and do not judge or criticize, and they cannot object to misinterpretations of their feelings and needs [ 294 ].

The central role of animals in fostering and maintaining an individual’s self-esteem and sense of identity has also been documented in studies on normal human–animal relationships and are one of the psychologically positive effects of the human–animal bond [ 71 , 301 , 302 ].

Like non-hoarders, incipient hoarders, overwhelmed caregivers and rescue hoarders derive a sense of security and comfort due to the fact of animals’ capacity to provide emotional support and unconditional love in a relationship that is perceived as less dangerous than those with other people [ 275 , 291 ]. Animal hoarders are reported to have difficulties in establishing affective bonds with others, tend to maintain social isolation [ 235 , 270 ] and prefer contact with animals [ 275 , 291 ]. They could consider their relationships with animals as safer and more rewarding than interactions with humans [ 275 , 294 ]. Cats and dogs are the most accumulated species [ 278 , 289 ] but also the two most common species of companion animals; they have a long history of domestication and close association with humans, live close to them and are widely considered as important social partners by their owners in many countries. However, hoarded animals may include a variety of animals, such as miniature ponies, deer, ferrets, pigs, various species of birds, and even spitting llamas, and multiple species may be present in any isolated hoarding case [ 278 ].

Steketee et al. [ 235 ] interviewed individuals who fit the criteria for animal hoarding and individuals owning many animals but not meeting the hoarding criteria, reporting that both hoarders and non-hoarders had stressful life events in childhood and adulthood, strong feelings about animals such as the desire to rescue, take care of and be close to them. Animal hoarders, however, had more dysfunctional interpersonal relationships and mental health concerns and anthropomorphized animals more often; however, the most significant difference between the two samples was the presence of a chaotic domestic environment during childhood and childhood problems with caregivers (e.g., unstable, neglectful, abusive, absent, and/or inconsistent parents). In another study [ 102 ], it was analyzed whether people owning 20 or more cats shared the commonly reported psychological and demographic profile of animal hoarders compared to owners of 1–2 cats drawn from the same population. They found that people who owned many cats were more similar to clinical animal hoarders in age and pet attachment levels than the typical cat owners, but they differed in functioning, veterinary care and home organization.

The quality of caregiving and attachment during infancy seem to play an important role in the emergence of animal hoarding, and animal hoarders often report that during childhood they relied on companion animals, suggesting that in difficult developmental situations companion animals may function as alternative attachment figures providing intimacy and security without fear of rejection [ 303 ]. Nathanson and Patronek [ 109 ] hypothesized that when parenting was neglectful, inconsistent or abusive, animals became crucial in animal hoarders’ childhood to maintain and promote empathy, comfort, calm, acceptance and self-esteem, as previously suggested by Brown [ 97 , 98 , 304 ] in the theory of animals as self-object. Secure attachment in early childhood is considered essential for normal emotional development, emotion regulation, empathy and good interpersonal relationships [ 205 , 303 ] and attachment to pets plays an important role in normal social, emotional and cognitive development, promoting mental health, well-being and quality of life [ 14 , 21 ].

Due to the occurrence of developmental and life events, animal hoarders may develop in adulthood a compensatory over-reliance and an overattachment to animals, with animals becoming a dysfunctional solution to cope with their need for relationships and intimacy without fear of rejection and abandonment [ 294 ]. An abusive, traumatic or dysfunctional childhood is correlated with a disorganized attachment style, which can result in compulsive caregiving. This caregiving style, differently from the sensitive caregiving style (i.e., the ability to be responsive and attuned with another’s individual support-seeking behavior), is characterized by the tendency to provide care obsessively and intrusively, irrespective of whether the care is wanted or needed [ 193 , 305 , 306 ]. In adulthood the compulsive caregiving of animals can become the primary way to maintain or building a sense of self. This kind of controlling behavior often characterizes the caregiving style of animal hoarders, together with other forms of control typical of animal hoarders including refusal to adopt, rejection of help and expert opinions regarding proper animal care and sometimes the saving of dead bodies [ 294 ].

Probably, one of the most perplexing aspects of animal hoarding is that animal hoarders declare to love animals and want to care for them but, in fact, their animals are terribly neglected and suffering. This lack of insight is typical of animal hoarders, and it has been suggested that being unaware of the degradation in their personal lives and those of their animals could be suggestive of dissociation [ 294 ].

Dissociation represents a self-protective strategy to avoid negative feelings associated with distress or trauma [ 307 ] and can make it difficult to understand and respond to others’ feelings as well as easier to view them as less than human [ 303 ]. In the case of animal hoarders, dissociation would represent a strategy to preserve the integrity of the self, the self-image and the mission of caregivers, notwithstanding the extremely precarious conditions of their animals.

It has been argued that dissociation may be best understood as a continuum from more common, normal manifestations to less common and more pathological symptoms [ 308 ]. Indeed, in [ 309 ] it was reported that in a sample of college students, dissociation was positively associated with attachment to companion animals, and this result was then replicated in another student sample [ 310 ].

6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts

The literature on human–animal relationships highlights the complex and highly multifaceted nature of this relationship showing that it may have positive, nonfunctional and clearly detrimental effects on animals or, in some cases, both animals and people. Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are considered to play an important role in either positive or negative relationships with animals and influence each other in determining the type and quality of the relationship between humans and animals.

Animal hoarding is a highly dysfunctional and pathological form of human–animal relationship, provides a striking example of the great variability in the way people may relate with animals and shows that psychological processes and motivations that promote and maintain positive and healthy relationships with animals may also have highly negative effects, causing suffering to both animals and humans. Patronek [ 11 ] defined animal hoarding as “the third dimension of animal abuse”, underlining that it entails substantial and protracted animal maltreatment and suffering but cannot be easily labeled as deliberate animal abuse and neglect due to the presence of a strong, albeit detrimental, attachment and human–animal bond.

Interestingly, as do most owners of companion animals, animal hoarders appear to have a strong emotional attachment to animals that represent a source of comfort and security and also provide a sense of social connection and self-efficacy. As in non-hoarders, in animal hoarders empathy (especially affective empathy) is a mechanism that triggers sensitivity to the needs and suffering of animals, motivating them to take care of them.

Furthermore, animal hoarders, similar to ordinary animal owners, attribute animals with human-like qualities [ 235 ], deriving comfort and well-being from their ability to provide emotional support and unconditional love and may view them as an extension of their self-concept [ 294 ].

It has been proposed that viewing animals as extensions of themselves, rather than separate beings, would make hoarders unable to empathize with them or to understand that they have needs of their own [ 294 , 304 ]. However, although to a different degree, even in nonpathological relationships companion animals, especially dogs, can serve as extensions of the owners’ self [ 88 , 96 ], helping them become something desired or giving them opportunities to do things that they could not otherwise do [ 96 ].

Similar to common pet owners, animal hoarders report that during childhood they relied on companion animals, suggesting that companion animals represented for them attachment figures, providing predictable intimacy and security without fear of rejection, maltreatment or abandonment. Then, in adulthood, hoarders may develop an abnormal over-reliance on companion animals for attachment and support, and animals become a dysfunctional strategy to cope with their need for relationships and intimacy.

People who hoard animals, depending on their prior life history, type of attachment developed and other conditions that emerge both at the intrapsychic and environmental level, may develop different forms of animal hoarding with different peculiarities. Indeed, the evidence on animal hoarding indicates that this syndrome is very complex and with great heterogeneity [ 100 , 292 ].

Yet, pet ownership is also complex, multifaceted and varies along a continuum. There are owners forming functional, healthy relationships with one or relatively few animals—where the needs of both owner and animals are met—and owners forming dysfunctional relationships with their pet, where the needs of the pet are disregarded and only the owner’s convenience and needs are pursued [ 8 ]. There are also owners keeping larger numbers of animals that are superficially comparable to clinical animal hoarding cases, but animal and human welfare are not really compromised [ 102 ].

Future studies comparing different types of companion animal owners with animal hoarders—controlling for other variables such as age, gender and the types of animals involved—would be useful to gain further insight into the complex, multifaceted nature of the human–animal bond and its distortions in animal hoarders.

As attachment, empathy and anthropomorphism appear to be basic ingredients of the human–animal relationships, it would be interesting to further investigate the differences in attachment, empathy and anthropomorphic thinking between normal pet owners with different types and number of pets and animal hoarders, as pioneered in a few studies so far [ 102 , 235 ].

Hoarders’ instantaneous attachment to animals and its negative effects could be related to hoarders’ higher sensitivity to the infantile features of pets. In addition, their attachment to a large number of animals and their willingness to rescue them could depend on a greater empathy towards them, associated with dysfunctions of some regulatory mechanisms, entailing similarity and familiarity, or to errors in the ability to process animals’ emotions, with stimuli-like facial expressions and vocalizations being interpreted in a systematically negative way (leading the hoarder to perceive animals as always in need of help), as observed in individuals who, like animal hoarders, have experienced childhood trauma or have personality disorders [ 311 ].

Another aspect that could be further investigated in animal hoarding is the role of anthropomorphism. The potential relationship between anthropomorphism and hoarding is intriguing and could help to further explain the strong and quick attachment animal hoarders form with animals and their distorted empathy.

Anthropomorphism is a pervasive human characteristic. It is found at different levels in normal human–animal relationships and has been shown to be important even in the hoarding of objects [ 253 ].

Finally, it would be interesting to gain more knowledge on the characteristics of the different forms of animal hoarding, in particular further investigating to what extent the “exploiter” hoarder, who lacks empathy, attachment and concern for animals, overlaps with other forms of psychopathology such as the antisocial personality disorder. This type of hoarder, who exploits animals, appears to also include individuals who derive profits from an intentional improper management of breeding farms and animal shelters, and considering them as just hoarders could erroneously turn a form of criminality into a psychological disorder such as animal hoarding.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and first draft writing, E.P.-P. All authors (E.P.-P., E.B.R. and E.S.C.) equally contributed to the writing, reviewing and editing of this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

coexistence: living harmoniously with wildlife in a human-dominated world

Coexistence: living harmoniously with wildlife in a human-dominated world is a primer on IFAW’s mentality that coexistence is better than conflict. People’s relationship with native wildlife is often that of conflict. Animals such as coyotes, wolves, bears, and beavers are considered “nuisances” and are treated as something to be controlled. The result is millions of animals killed in barbaric ways every year by governments, all to “reduce conflict.” This report highlights examples of people finding innovative, yet simple ways to coexist with wildlife so that we can live side by side with these species. IFAW understands that not only are native wildlife species important to protect, but they are also essential to the ecosystem and therefore our own well-being. We work every day to make the planet a better place for both people and animals.

Executive summary

The current relationship between people and animals.

• We are living in the Anthropocene, the modern era characterized by human-dominated landscapes, reduced wildlife populations, and chaotic climates.
• At the same time, some wildlife thrive in and adapt to human-dominated landscapes. These species are often considered inconvenient and untold numbers, from black birds to coyotes, are killed through destructive, cruel, and mostly ineffective methods. The result is wasted resources, animal welfare violations, and ecosystem damage. Human efforts to kill wildlife simply because they are considered a nuisance are not justified.

Mutual benefits of coexistence

• The best available science indicates humane techniques that emphasize coexistence and are adapted to context and changing conditions over time are more effective at preventing or reducing conflicts and wildlife management costs over the long-term.
• In many cases, human-wildlife interactions are labeled as “conflict” due to negative perceptions associated with the mere presence of a wild animal. In these instances, solutions center on addressing concerns and changing human behaviors to reduce interactions between humans and wildlife.
• Evidence that humane coexistence strategies are effective abound. Case studies illustrating successful coexistence are included in this report: coyotes in North America, gray wolves across the Northern Hemisphere, community-based conservation in Montana, urban black bears in Colorado, jaguars in Mexico, and African lions in Kenya.

Broad importance of wildlife to human society and survival

• Wildlife have diverse and important values. From global economies to local livelihoods, they contribute various ecosystem services and support human well-being. Wildlife also have value simply in their existence.
• When humans coexist with and avoid persecuting wildlife in and around our communities, we safeguard ecosystem health, agricultural stability, food security, and the creation of new sustainable economies (e.g., ecotourism). Ultimately, coexistence with wildlife is essential for all life, humans and animals alike.

Read The Full Report

Photo: An adult female coyote spotted in San Francisco. © Jaymi Heimbuch / Urban Coyote Initiative

Our work can’t get done without you. Please give what you can to help animals thrive.

Unfortunately, the browser you use is outdated and does not allow you to display the site correctly. Please install any of the modern browsers, for example:

Friday essay: from political bees to talking pigs – how ancient thinkers saw the human-animal  divide

Professor, Department of Classics and Ancient History, University of Sydney

Disclosure statement

Julia Kindt received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and is a member of the Sydney Environment Institute.

University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

What makes us human? What (if anything) sets us apart from all other creatures? Ever since Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, the answer to these questions has pointed us back to our own animal nature.

Yet the idea that, in one way or another, our humanity is entangled with the non-human has a much longer and more venerable history. In the West, it goes all the way back to Classical antiquity – to Greek and Roman views about humans and animals.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322) first argued the human stands out from all other animals through the presence of logos (“speech” but also “reason”). Numerous Greek and Roman thinkers engaged in similar attempts to name what, exactly, sets humans apart.

Who or what is man? The arguments these philosophers came up with verged from the obscure to the outright bizarre: The human alone has the capacity to have sex at all seasons and well into old age; the human alone can sit comfortably on his hip bones; the human alone has hands that can build altars to the gods and craft divine statues. No observation seemed too far-fetched or outlandish.

And yet, above all, the argument that animals lack logos continued to resonate. In classical antiquity it became powerful enough to coin the very word for animals in ancient Greek: ta aloga – “those without logos”.

This position was taken up by the philosophical school of the Stoics and from there came to influence Christianity, with its view of man made in the image of God.

The idea of an insurmountable gap between humans and other animals soon became the dominant paradigm, informing, for instance, the 18th century naturalist Carl Linnaeus’s influential classification of the human as homo sapiens (literally: the “wise”, or “rational man”).

The practical implications of this idea cannot be underestimated. What has been termed “ the moral status of animals ” – the question of whether they should be included in considerations of justice – has traditionally been linked to the question of whether they have logos. Because animals differ from humans in lacking both speech and reason (so this line of argument goes) they cannot themselves formulate moral positions. Therefore, they do not warrant inclusion in our moral considerations, or at least not in the same way as humans.

Increasingly, of course, as many contemporary philosophers have pointed out, this idea seems too simple.

New research in the behavioural sciences illustrates the at times astonishing capacities of certain animals: crows and otters using tools to crack open nuts or shells to make their contents available for consumption; octopuses lifting the lids to their tanks and successfully escaping to the ocean through pipes; bees optimising their flight path on repeated trips to a food source.

But there is, in fact, a considerable body of evidence from the ancient Greek and Roman worlds showcasing the complex behaviours of different kinds of animals.

Ancient authors like Pliny , Plutarch , Oppian , Aelian , Porphyry , Athenaeus and others have dedicated whole books or treatises to this topic, pushing back on the notion of animals as merely “dumb beasts”.

Their views anticipated the modern debate by attributing animals not only with forms of reason; they also highlighted their capacity to suffer, to feel pain and to feel empathy towards each other and, occasionally, even towards members of the human species.

Then there are the human-animal hybrid creatures of the Greek and Roman myths (more on this later) – the Sirens, the Sphinx, the Minotaur. All combine the body parts of human and animal. Individually and collectively they thus raise a fundamental yet potentially disturbing question: what if we are really, in part at least, animal?

Ancient animal-smarts

In On the Nature of Animals (late second/early third century CE), Aelian, a Roman author writing in Greek, described fish that helped their unfortunate mates when caught at sea, setting their backs against the trapped creature and “pushing with all their might to try to stop him from being hauled in”.

He wrote, too, of dolphins that helped fisher-folk, pressing the fish in “on all sides” so they couldn’t escape. In return, they were rewarded for their labours by a share of the catch.

He celebrated the clever design of beehives, observing:

The first thing that they construct are the chambers of their kings, and they are spacious and above all the rest. Round them they put a barrier, as it were a wall or fence, thereby also enhancing their importance of the royal dwelling.

By parading animal-smarts in action these examples – of which there are hundreds - astonish, inform, and entertain at the same time – similar perhaps to the ubiquitous reels showing animals doing amazing things circulating in modern social media.

Modern ethological studies variously observe animal behaviours which reverberate with Aelian’s examples.

Pairs of rabbit fish have been shown to cooperate, with one partner standing on guard protecting the other one while feeding. Honeybees indeed build bigger cells for their queen that are set apart at the bottom of the hive separated by thicker walls. And bottlenose dolphins have been found to cooperate with humans in their efforts to capture fish.

While not all of the ancient anecdotal evidence is confirmed by modern research, the overall thrust is clear: it deserves to be taken seriously and is part of the ancient conversation of what makes us human.

The power of storytelling

Some Greek and Roman thinkers resorted to the medium of storytelling to articulate views that are essentially philosophical in nature. The Greek philosopher Plutarch’s treatise Beasts are Rational draws on the famous story from Homer’s Odyssey in which some of Odysseus’ comrades are turned into pigs by the sorceress Circe.

Read more: Guide to the Classics: Homer's Odyssey

Odysseus is eventually able to convince the sorceress to turn them back into human beings. In Plutarch’s rendering of the story he returns to Circe’s island to check whether there are any other Greeks turned animal – and finds a pig named Gryllus (“Grunter”).

Things take a turn for the unexpected when Grunter declines Odysseus’ offer of help. The reason? He prefers his animal to his human existence.

Grunter sets out to make an impassioned, highly rational case, arguing all animals in one form or another, have reason. Individual species differ from each other merely in the extent of and kind of reason. And, yes, this includes even those animals that have come to serve as the epitome of dumbness: sheep and the ass.

“Please note,” he adds, “that cases of dullness and stupidity in some animals are demonstrated by the cleverness and sharpness of others – as when you compare an ass and a sheep with a fox or a wolf or a bee.”

Grunter is not afraid to push things even further: Don’t individual humans, too, differ from each other in cleverness and wit? Long before the arrival of evolutionary theory, the pig here points towards a gradual view of how certain features, skills, and capacities map onto a continuum of all living creatures (the human included). The implied conclusion: there is no insurmountable gap between the human and other animals.

Grunter’s views are supported by others such as the speaking rooster of Lucian’s The Dream or the Cock (second century CE). Claiming to be the latest in a long line of previous incarnations that include (brace yourself) – the philosopher Pythagoras, the Cynic philosopher Crates, the Trojan hero Euphorbus, the Greek courtesan Aspasia, and several animals – this rooster-philosopher, too, prefers his animal to his human existence.

Animals, the rooster argues, are content with the basics; humans, by contrast, over-complicate things because they can’t get enough and greedily strive for ever more.

Read more: Guide to the classics: Darwin's The Descent of Man 150 years on — sex, race and our 'lowly' ape ancestry

Myths and hybrid monsters

Myth is arguably the most influential genre of ancient storytelling. A set of malleable tales of great age and importance, myth constitutes a world apart, a medium just far enough removed from the intricacies (and banalities) of everyday life to allow for the exploration of fundamental questions concerning the human condition. And Greek myths often explore human entanglements with non-human animals in ways that reference the philosophical debate.

The mythical figure of the Minotaur for example – a hybrid creature sporting the head of a bull and the body of a human male – does not seem to adhere to the norms and conventions applying to either of his composite identities.

His insatiable appetite for young humans sets him apart from accepted behaviour for both humans and cattle alike, identifying him as monstrous.

But what are monsters for?

This question also applies to another famous hybrid beast of the ancient world: the Theban sphinx. Perched high outside the gates of the city of Thebes, in the region of Boeotia in central Greece, this creature (half woman, half lion, often endowed with an extra set of wings) challenges all wishing to enter with the following riddle:

What is that which has one voice and yet becomes four-footed and two-footed and three-footed?

Many try and fail to name the right answer, paying for it with their lives. Until Oedipus comes along. He gives the correct answer and thus busts the beast, which dutifully throws itself to death.

The creature in the riddle is, of course, the human: man first crawls on four legs, then walks on two, until in old age when a walking stick may serve as a third “leg”. And yet despite his clever wit, Oedipus is ultimately unable to use reason to his and the city’s advantage (a situation explored in depth in Sophocles’ famous tragedy Oedipus the King ).

What is the point of the riddle of the Sphinx? This story poses the human as a question but also illustrates the limits of logos in gaining self-understanding. Oedipus can solve the beast’s riddle; yet the riddle of his own humanity remains unresolved until it is too late. Here, the monstrous figure holds up a mirror for the human to recognise himself.

Speaking animals

Logos (in the sense of speech) also features prominently in the intervention of another iconic creature from classical antiquity: Xanthus, Achilles’ speaking horse.

On the battlefields of Troy (featured in Homer’s Iliad) Xanthus reminds Achilles of his imminent death. In this way the horse seems to tease all those thinkers (ancient and modern) who have argued the human stands out from all other animals in his capacity to speak in complex sentences.

Read more: Guide to the classics: Homer's Iliad

Xanthus’s voice resonates with that of numerous other speaking animals populating Greek and Roman literature, including the gnat of Pseudo-Virgil’s Culex , the speaking eel in Oppian’s didactic poem On Fishing , and the whole chorus of animals speaking to us in ancient fables.

Individually and as a group they raise a question: what if animals could speak to us in human language? What would they have to say to those humans prepared to listen?

As it turns out in these stories, often nothing too flattering. In classical antiquity, speaking animals often use their special position to question or examine the human condition.

Xanthus is a case in point. By reminding Achilles he is fated to die at Troy, the speaking horse reminds the Greek hero of an important aspect of the human condition: his own mortality and the fact that he, too, is ultimately subject to powers beyond human control.

The political bee

In Greek and Roman accounts of honeybee politics we find a peculiar human habit with a surprisingly long history: the attribution of political qualities to honeybees.

When we distinguish a “queen bee” from “workers” we are continuing a tradition that goes back to the ancient world (and possibly beyond). Aristotle names honeybees among the zoa politika (the “political animals”) – a category that includes wasps, ants, cranes, and, above all, the human.

He and others then set out to explore the intricacies of honeybee society. The ancient Greeks and Romans traditionally considered honeybees to inhabit a monarchy. In line with the gender realities of the ancient world, they imagined this monarchy to be led by a king or male leader.

Does the bee monarch have a stinger? If not, how does he assert his power and leadership? And what does the presence of the obviously unproductive drones in the hive say about the distribution of labour in a community? These are the kind of questions that resonated among Greek and Roman thinkers.

Honeybee society thus provided a perfect microcosm to study a set of questions that concerned human politics and society. The Roman philosopher Seneca, for instance, asserted that the bee monarch leads by clementia (mercy or mildness) - a form of leadership he found woefully lacking in contemporary Roman society.

Meat and man

So far we have seen animals mostly playing a symbolic role in Graeco-Roman storytelling. There is also a very real way in which human and animal bodies come to merge: through the human consumption of meat.

The ancient Greeks and Romans were ardent meat-eaters. Indeed meat-eating became a status symbol closely linked to the articulation of masculine identities.

In classical Greece the male citizen received his equal share of meat after communal religious sacrifices carried out by the polis (“city-state”). Meat eating also features prominently in several anecdotes about successful ancient Greek athletes who toned their extraordinary bodies through the consumption of ridiculous amounts of meat.

One of them – a boxer named Theagenes – even claimed to have gobbled up an entire oxen in one sitting. Another one – Milo of Croton – apparently gained his extraordinary strength by carrying a heifer on his back as a young man until both he and the heifer had grown up.

Meanwhile at Rome, the elites sought to outdo each other by hosting ever more lavish dinner parties typically featuring one or several meat dishes. More often than not this involved attempts to serve a bigger or larger quantity of boar than their peers. Roman sumptuary laws eventually sought to control the worst excesses – albeit with limited success.

The shearwaters of Diomedea

The real also blends into the imaginary in the story of a special kind of bird. The Scopoli Shearwater ( Calonectris Diomedea ) is a species common to the Adriatic and other parts of the Mediterranean Sea. One of its outstanding features is that its cries resemble that of a wailing baby. These birds feed on small fish, crustaceans, squid, and zooplankton and are both migratory and pelagic.

The stories told about these birds by several ancient authors bring us to what is perhaps the most momentous way of exploring the human-animal boundary: the idea that in the realm of myth, at least, some humans, under certain conditions, could turn into animals and back again (metamorphosis).

According to Aelian , some shearwaters residing on a rocky, otherwise uninhabited island in the Mediterranean Sea showed puzzling behaviour. They duly ignored all non-Greeks arriving on their island. Yet if Greek people reached their shores they welcomed them with stretched wings, even settling down on their laps as if for a joint meal.

What motivated this curious behaviour?

The backstory explains that the birds were once human. They were the comrades of Diomedes, king of Argos, one of the Greeks fighting at Troy, who is said to have died on the same island now inhabited by the birds. Apparently, upon his death, his friends grieved so heavily the goddess Aphrodite turned them into birds – their cries forever bemoaning the passing of their comrade.

On the face of it this story is merely another example of a myth explaining an outstanding feature in nature (the birds’ endearing human-like cry ). Yet there is more to the birds’ curious behaviour than meets the eye. In discriminating between Greeks and non-Greeks the birds seem to recall not only their former humanity but specifically their Greekness; they even seem to engage in the central Greek practice of extending friendship to guests ( xenia ) and the sharing of food.

In doing so they illustrate a central point of ancient (and many modern) tales of metamorphosis: even though the body may turn animal, the mind remains human. As the seat of logos it contains our humanity while the body adds little, if anything, of substance.

As such, rather than imagining what the world looks like from the point of view of a non-human creature, tales of metamorphosis ultimately come to reaffirm the view that the human stands apart from all other animals.

In the myth of the Minotaur, the Greek hero Theseus eventually enters the labyrinth in which the Minotaur is confined, tracking him down, and slaying him. With the help of a thread given to him by Ariadne, he finds his way back out to tell the tale.

But trying to make sense of the Minotaur and other iconic creatures from the ancient world leads us down a rabbit hole into a place of blurred boundaries: where the human emerges as a contested figure somewhere in the space between mind and body, human and animal parts.

In the end, then, there is no hard and fast boundary separating us from all other creatures – notwithstanding all efforts to dress ourselves up as different. Rather, it is the negotiations between different facets of our identity which make us human

• Ancient Greece
• Animal rights
• Greek mythology
• Animal behavior
• Friday essay
• The Odyssey
• meat eating

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Operations Manager

Senior Education Technologist

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Human–animal relations from a historical and evolutionary perspective, companion animals and human health and well-being, beneficial physical outcomes, do animals benefit, too, detrimental or inefficient human–animal relations, capturing the nature of our link with nonhuman animals, where to from here: broader issues involved in human–animal relations, references cited.

• < Previous

People and Companion Animals: It Takes Two to Tango

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Catherine Amiot, Brock Bastian, Pim Martens, People and Companion Animals: It Takes Two to Tango, BioScience , Volume 66, Issue 7, 01 July 2016, Pages 552–560, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw051

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Animals have accompanied humans for thousands of years, with a strong bond forged between humans and other species. Our relationships with animals can take different forms. On one hand, animals can serve instrumental purposes: We currently use animals for clothing, for testing a range of human products, for gaining basic insights into human biology and behavior, and as food. On the other hand, human–animal relations are social. The clearest example is the practice of pet keeping, with people attributing a special status to their companion animals. We review the current state of research on human–animal relations by focusing particularly on companion animals and on the psychological mechanisms involved in this special relationship. Our aim is to highlight key findings from human–animal relations research that also have implications for different scientific disciplines.

Our relations with animals clearly have consequences for both animals and for humans (Beck 2014 , Amiot and Bastian 2015 ). These consequences range from the physical to the psychological. For instance, research has demonstrated that human relationships with animals are good for human health, because they can reduce stress and medical complaints while also increasing self-confidence (Herzog 2011 ). However, research suggests that human–animal interactions are no panacea, with a number of detrimental outcomes also identified, such as through the spread of disease.

The goal of this article is to first highlight that our relationships with animals—particularly companion animals—are a central element of human life. To this end, we first discuss how human–animal relations have been prevalent over the course of human history and how they are rooted in our shared evolution. Next, we provide an overview of research into the beneficial aspects of human–animal interactions. We then bring nuances to these conclusions by presenting empirical evidence that identifies some of the boundary conditions for these effects and reveals how our relations with animals can also be detrimental (zoonoses, meat eating), both for humans and/or for animals. Our aim is to highlight human–animal relations as a field of research that merits continued theoretical and empirical attention from a diversity of scientific disciplines, providing a basis for new research directions.

For more than 99% of human history, people have lived in hunter–gatherer bands totally and intimately involved with other living organisms (Wilson 1993 ), suggesting that the evolution of human responses to animals were shaped by these interactions. Through paintings in caves and other art forms, such as epitaphs on animals’ tombs, we know that animals played significant roles in the lives of our ancestors. From historical evidence, we also know that many examples of “relationships” between people and animals are emotional in nature (Serpell and Paul 1994 ). Companion animals , or pets—formally defined as animals we live with and that have no obvious function—represent one category of animals that have been assigned a special status by humans. Whereas the value we attribute to most animals stands on economic and practical considerations, the importance ascribed to companion animals comes from the benefits of the relationship we have with them (Serpell and Paul 1994 ). Indeed, approximately 90% of pet owners consider their companion animals as fully fledged family members (Cohen 2002 , Carlisle-Frank and Frank 2006 ). This relationship is longstanding and enduring: Recent genetic analyses suggest that the co-evolution of dogs and humans started as long as 32,000 years ago (Wong 2013 ). Dogs and their owners are therefore an excellent example of the co-evolution that took place between humans and animals.

The ability for humans to communicate and coordinate with dogs became increasingly possible because of this co-evolution and domestication process. Indeed, dogs have a unique ability to adjust their behavior in response to nonverbal cues from humans (Kubinyi et al. 2003 , Hare and Tomasello 2005 ), a sensitivity that is also evident at the biological level. Recent research shows that gazing behavior from dogs (but not wolves) increased oxytocin concentrations in owners. Dogs given exogenous oxytocin looked at their owners more, and owner oxytocin increased following these interactions. This suggests the existence of an interspecies oxytocin-mediated positive feedback loop (Nagasawa et al. 2015 , but see Wynne 2015 ). Pet owners have also been found to attribute both basic (anger, joy, fear, disgust, sadness) and complex emotions (shame, jealousy, disappointment, compassion) to their companion animals (see figure 1 )—particularly to dogs compared with cats (Martens et al. 2016 ). This increased attribution of complex emotions to dogs may be explained by the high level of mutual understanding and shared emotions that are suggested to exist between humans and dogs.

Pet owners have also been found to attribute both basic emotions (anger, joy, fear, disgust, sadness) and complex emotions (shame, jealousy, disappointment, compassion) to their companion animals.

Our history with cats is still unclear. Most authorities on the subject believed that cats were first domesticated in ancient Egypt (between 3000 BCE and 30 BCE), but a recent study suggests that cats were domesticated at the same time as the cultivation of wheat and barley in the Near East, about 10,000 years ago (Driscoll et al. 2007 ). Today, cats, dogs, and a number of other species we consider companion animals (rabbits and other rodents, reptiles, horses, fish, birds) continue to play an important role in society. Two out of three Americans live with animals, spending more than $55 billion annually on their welfare (APPA 2013 ). In Australia, 63% of households own companion animals (AHA 2013 ), whereas in Canada, 57% of people live with companion animals (Perrin 2009 ).

These historical accounts indicate that over time, humans became part of a co-evolutionary system in which we evolved with other animals that are not part of the same ecological niche. Moreover, we have forged particular bonds with some of those animals such that they became domesticated. Where does this attraction toward animals, or at least interest in them, come from? One of the most often cited theories as to why humans are interested in animals is the biophilia hypothesis (Wilson 1993 ). Biophilia refers to the tendency of humans to focus on life and lifelike processes. It involves the emotional affiliation that humans have toward other life forms, including animals. Revised theoretical accounts of the biophilia hypothesis state that biophilia is not a single instinct but rather a complex of learning rules that trigger a variety of emotional reactions to animals, which are themselves shaped by culture (Wilson 1993 ). Importantly, the feelings molded by these learning rules fall along several emotional spectra: from attraction to aversion, from awe to indifference, and from peacefulness to fear-driven anxiety. In this sense, biophilia refers to a selective attentiveness to other forms of life, which is neither inherently positive nor negative. In line with the biophilia hypothesis, the human mind appears to be wired to think about animals differently from how they think about inanimate objects, suggesting that part of the brain evolved to specialize in processing information about animals (see also New et al. 2007 ).

Empirical evidence confirms this proposition and provides support for the biophilia hypothesis (Kahn 1997, DeLoache and Pickard 2010 ). In a series of experiments, children were more attentive to animals than they were to inanimate objects. In free-play sessions, children aged 1–3 interacted more with live animals than with interesting toys. Furthermore, they behaved toward the animals differently from how they reacted to the toys, talking about the animals more than the toys and asking more questions about them (LoBue et al. 2013 ).

In line with Lorenz's ( 1942 ) “cute response,” humans are innately drawn to animals—especially young ones—possibly because these animals share perceptual features with human infants, such as big eyes, large foreheads, and soft contours. This tendency to prefer juvenile features in an adult animal (as in an adult human) is referred to as neoteny . It has been argued that the human tendency to care and feel empathy for animals may have been a trait that was selected for, because it could reflect a more general capacity to care for human infants. Concern for animal welfare may have also given certain groups of humans an evolutionary advantage because it allowed for the efficient domestication of animals and herding (Bradshaw and Paul 2010 ). In support of this contention, faces with infant features—including baby animal faces—are rated by adult participants as more attractive than those without such features (Archer and Monton 2011 ).

The co-evolution of humans and animals has been observed across cultures and contexts, suggesting that this is a built-in, universal human drive. People from a diversity of cultures and social classes (Messent and Horsfield 1985 ) own and are in contact with animals. However, it is the specifics of our relationships with animals that vary across cultures. Whereas in the United States, Western Europe, and Western-oriented countries, companion animals act as “family members,” in many non-Western countries, the welfare of those same animals is of little concern. Culture can determine whether an animal is considered a companion or food (Gray and Young 2011 ). For example, dogs are kept as companions in the United States but are eaten in South Korea (Podberscek 2009 ), and stag beetles are kept as companions in Japan but not in the United States. Although cultural differences in attitudes toward animals exist (Kellert 1993), even within the same culture, pet preferences—such as preference for dog breeds—have been found to change over time, often in a highly random manner (Herzog et al. 2004 ).

Humans have developed an interdependent relationship with many animal species—and dogs in particular (Hare and Tomasello 2005 ). More recently, research has begun to reveal whether this human–animal bond may have well-being consequences. The general assumption has been that people benefit from the presence of animals and in particular companion animals. However, emerging evidence suggests that the association between the presence of animals and human health is varied and complex (for reviews, see Friedmann and Son 2009 , Wells 2009 , Herzog 2011 , Amiot and Bastian 2015 ). Both significant and nonsignificant research findings need to be considered and reviewed in order to paint a full picture of human–animal relations and understand when and for whom these relations are beneficial or not (Herzog 2011 ). To reflect the state of these findings, we first review empirical evidence that confirms the beneficial role that companion animals play in people's lives. Next, we review evidence highlighting the detrimental and null effects of human–animal relations. We end by identifying the potential moderating factors that could explain who is likely to benefit most from the presence of animals.

One of the best-known studies showing the effect of animal presence on human health is a longitudinal study by Friedmann and colleagues (1980). This seminal work, focusing on 92 heart-attack victims, revealed that 28% of pet owners survived for at least a year, compared with 6% of non-pet owners. This study generated great interest in the benefits of animals to human health and inspired a series of replications and extensions (e.g., Friedmann et al. 2007 ). One of the few experimental studies showing the association between the presence of companion animals and human health randomly assigned hypertensive stockbrokers to either a pet-ownership or a no-pet-ownership condition (Allen et al. 2001 ). After 6 months of owning an animal or not, measures of blood pressure during a stressful task revealed smaller increases in blood pressure in the pet-ownership compared with the non-pet-ownership group.

One pathway through which the presence of companion animals may alleviate stress is via neurochemical responses that increase the capacity to cope with stress. Research has shown increases in oxytocin, dopamine, and endorphins in both humans and dogs when they interacted positively with one another, such as when gently stroking or scratching the dog. In comparison, the activation of these neurochemicals was more modest when reading a book (Odendaal and Meintjes 2003 , see also Kis et al. 2014 ). A brain-imaging experiment also revealed that pet owners displayed a lower stress response when they were in the presence of their own companion animal than when their animal was absent (Sugawara et al. 2012 ), and elderly people exposed to fish in tanks reported lower physiological stress compared with those who were not (DeSchriver and Riddick 1990 ). Epidemiological and longitudinal studies have also uncovered positive associations between the presence of companion animals and human physical well-being, revealing that people living with companion animals had fewer physician visits than similar patients without companion animals (e.g., Headey et al. 2002 ).

Beyond reducing the likelihood of illness, dogs may even have the capacity to detect the emergence of illness. Dogs have been trained to detect cancer among humans beyond chance levels (McCulloch et al. 2006 ), to alert their owners of upcoming epileptic seizures (Brown and Goldstein 2011 ), and to respond to their owners’ hypoglycemic states (Rooney et al. 2013 ). Apart from companion animals per se , animal care farms can also play a role in “green care” for those with dementia, psychiatric problems, and physical disabilities (De Bruin et al. 2012 ).

Beneficial psychological outcomes

Just thinking about one's animal may confer psychological benefits. Indeed, experimental evidence revealed that when a companion animal is either physically or cognitively present (i.e., recalled to memory), pet owners expressed higher aspirations and report greater feelings of self-efficacy in attaining personal goals (Zilcha-Mano et al. 2012 ). Other work has shown that writing about how one's companion animal fulfilled social needs in the context of social rejection had the same psychological benefits compared to thinking about one's best friend, suggesting that companion animals provide a direct source of social support (McConnell et al. 2011 ).

Epidemiological and longitudinal studies have both uncovered positive associations between the presence of companion animals and human psychological well-being. For example, in a 10-month prospective study, new pet owners reported a significant reduction in minor health problems during the first month following the acquisition of their companion animal (Serpell 1991 ). This effect persisted among dog owners at a 10-month follow-up, and dog owners also reported improved self-esteem over this time period. Companion animals have also been found to play a soothing and calming role in the well-being of those who suffer from dementia and the families who care for them (Baun and McCabe 2003 ).

Beneficial psychosocial outcomes

Companion animals can also serve as a springboard toward more positive relations with fellow humans. Children with companion animals often develop improved empathy, self-esteem, and social participation (Melson 2001 ). Furthermore, companion animals can be involved in the treatment of conduct disorder in children (Levinson 1969 ). In support for these contentions, a longitudinal study conducted among children aged 8 to 12 who had just acquired a new dog showed that compared with a matching group of non-dog owners, children with the new dog were visited more often by their friends, and their families engaged in more leisure activities together at the 1-month follow-up (Serpell 1991 ). Exposure to affectionate relationships with companion animals during childhood also predisposes people—at least retrospectively—to develop more positive affect not only toward animals later in their lives but even to report greater empathy and positive attitudes toward humans (e.g., Miura et al. 2002 ).

To account for these intriguing beneficial effects, commentators have proposed that animals can facilitate human–human relations by acting as “social lubricants” who help to catalyze social relationships more broadly (Collis and McNicholas 1998 ). Even our perception of another individual changes depending on whether or not an animal accompanies them. For example, therapists accompanied by a dog are evaluated more positively than those without a dog (Schneider and Harley 2006 ). These perceptions in turn affect human–human behaviors. In experiments that systematically compare human–human interaction when a dog is present versus absent, being accompanied by a dog was associated with increased frequency of social interactions among humans (McNicholas and Collis 2000 ). When accompanied by a dog, people were also more likely to receive help from others, such as a money donation, and others were more likely to trust them, more often providing their phone number to those accompanied by a dog (Guéguen and Ciccotti 2008 ).

Although dogs, who are highly social animals, were used in many of these studies, even rabbits and turtles encouraged approaches by other people and stimulated conversations between children and unfamiliar adults in a community park setting (Hunt et al. 1992 ). Whereas service and assistance animals can forge deep relationships with their owners, their presence can also lead to increased interactions among humans per se (Bernstein et al. 2000 ). Parents of autistic children (Burrows et al. 2008 ) also reported that service dogs promoted positive social interactions, also improving these families’ social recognition and status and contributing to others’ awareness of autism.

Therapeutic interventions. Some types of contact with animals are more structured than others and aim specifically to be therapeutic. This includes animal-assisted therapy (AAT), which is defined as an intervention with specific goals and objectives that is delivered by health professionals with specialized expertise in using an animal as an integral part of treatment (Fine 2006 ). In AAT, animals are seen as playing the role of secure attachment figures who may then serve to facilitate more permanent and positive (human) relationships (Zilcha-Mano et al. 2011 ).

To summarize and integrate the quantitative research findings on the effectiveness of AAT, Nimer and Lundahl ( 2007 ) conducted a meta-analysis that included 49 studies with appropriate methodology. Dogs were the most common animal therapists. AAT had moderate beneficial effects on well-being outcomes such as anxiety and depression, moderate beneficial effects on behavioral and medical outcomes such as blood pressure and heart rate, and also highly beneficial therapeutic effects on autistic-spectrum behaviors (see also O'Haire et al. 2013 ).

Empirical evidence indicates that human–animal relations may not only benefit human health but may benefit animals’ health as well. For instance, the action of stroking an animal has been found to reduce the animal's heart rate (Lynch and McCarthy 1969 ). Other work has shown that dogs with owners who consider them as social partners showed lower levels of morning cortisol (Schoberl et al. 2012 ), suggesting that how dogs are integrated into their owners’ lives more generally is associated with the dogs’ level of stress. Positive human–animal interactions even have effects at the neurotransmitter level (increased levels of phenylacetic acid, catabolite of aphenylethylamine) in both humans and animals, suggesting that both gain benefits from the interaction (Odendaal and Lehmann 2000 ).

Some studies support a negative association between the presence of companion animals and human health and well-being. Research conducted among 425 heart-attack victims revealed that pet owners (22%) were more likely than non-pet owners (14%) to die or suffer remissions within a year of suffering from their heart attack (Parker et al. 2010 ). In a longitudinal study conducted among children, those who owned a dog reported an increase in ill-health symptoms by the 12-month follow-up (Paul and Serpell 1996 ). In another longitudinal study conducted among older adults, Pikhartova and colleagues (2014) found that owning a pet positively predicted subsequent loneliness among women, and that reported loneliness also predicted subsequent pet ownership, suggesting a negative spiral between animal presence and loneliness over time. Large epidemiological studies also revealed that pet owners suffered more from psychological problems than non-pet owners (anxiety, depression, panic attacks; Parslow et al. 2005 , Koivusilta and Ojanlatva 2006 ).

Nonsignificant associations between the presence of animals and human health and well-being have also been observed. For example, new pet owners taking part in a 6-month prospective study did not report reduced loneliness over time relative to non-pet owners (Gilbey et al. 2007 ), and depression scores between pet and non-pet owners in a 9-year longitudinal study were not significantly different (Simons et al. 2000 ). When directly comparing relationship satisfaction with animals and with people, satisfaction with friends and social groups predicted psychological well-being (i.e., higher self-esteem and life satisfaction; lower loneliness, sense of isolation, and depression). However, satisfaction with companion animals did not (Hawkley and Cacioppo 2010 ). These results suggest that relations with humans are more important to well-being than those we have with animals.

Other negative effects of human–animal relations come from the medical history of our relationship with animals, including dogs and cats. Here, the detrimental effects of animal contact include infectious diseases, zoonoses, parasitism, and injury from bites. In terms of zoonoses specifically, a study conducted among Canadian pet owners revealed a range of practices that increase zoonotic-disease risk: allowing dogs (13%) and cats (30%) to sleep in a child's bed, allowing dogs to lick a child's face (24%), and allowing a reptile (14%) to roam through the kitchen. Despite the fact that hand washing by children was high (76% washed hands after touching the pet), the authors concluded there is a need to educate people on zoonotic-disease-prevention practices (Stull et al. 2013 ). On a more positive note, being exposed to a companion animal during childhood was consistently associated with a reduced risk of allergic reactions and atopic asthma at the age of 7 but tended to be associated (particularly for rabbits and rodents) with an increased risk of non-atopic asthma (Collin et al. 2014 ).

Bringing the findings together: Potential moderators

In order to bring together the contradictory associations between the presence of companion animals and human well-being, Amiot and Bastian ( 2015 ) have recently proposed different moderating factors that could explain why animals sometimes appear to have positive, negative, or null effects on human well-being. For instance, life conditions and stages, as well as the nature of our relations with animals, may represent such moderators (see Blazina et al. 2011 ). Specifically, the presence of companion animals may be particularly beneficial for individuals who have illnesses that reduce their mobility, when they have limited access to social support, or when living alone. In terms of age, companion animals appear to play a more beneficial role among children and the elderly than among younger and middle-age adults (Enders-Slegers 2000 , cf. Wells 2009 ). Indeed, companion animals become especially important during the “empty-nest” stage of life. Although the majority of studies on human–animal relations have been conducted in individualistic and Westernized countries (Amiot and Bastian 2015 ), future research will also need to systematically address the moderating role of culture. For example, whether animals will be associated with more versus less human well-being is possibly aligned with other factors, such as the prevalence of pet ownership in a particular culture and the role assigned to a specific animal in that culture (Gray and Young 2011 ).

The nature of our link to animals may also help to predict when the animals’ presence will be associated with more versus less human well-being. For instance, the more pet owners perceived discrepancies between their own personality and their companion animal's personality, the less likely they were to report higher life satisfaction and lower negative affect (El-Alayli et al. 2006 ). Similarly, the more pet owners perceived that their behaviors are compatible with their companion animals’, the higher they reported being attached to their animal and the more likely they were to report positive overall mental health (Budge et al. 1998 ). Together, these studies confirm the importance of accounting for moderating factors that can explain the conditions under which animals are associated with more positive human health and well-being.

What are the specific ways that humans develop a psychological “link” to animals? Attachment is an important factor that has been studied in the human–animal relations literature (McNicholas et al. 2005 ). Secure attachment , which is also beneficial to well-being, refers to the ability of an attachment figure to provide a secure basis, or a sense of safety when the other feels threatened or unsafe. Although it is mostly humans who act as caregivers and meet their companion animals’ immediate needs (e.g., exercise, food, health), companion animals may also serve as attachment figures for their owners (Zilcha-Mano et al. 2011 ). In this sense, both humans and their animals can serve as attachment figures for each other. There are a number of self-report instruments that measure the degree of attachment to animals, such as the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Johnson et al. 1992 ), the Pet Relationship Scale (e.g., Lago et al. 1988 ), and the more recent Pet Attachment Questionnaire, based on Bowlby's psychological attachment taxonomy (Zilcha-Mano et al. 2011 ). Studies that have adapted the Strange Situation Test—in which dogs (instead of babies) are placed in the “strange situation”—show that dogs display attachment patterns toward their human caregivers that are similar to those patterns observed in human–human relations. It is also possible that the nature of our attachment to animals could serve as an additional moderator in the association between the presence of animals and well-being. In this sense, more secure forms of attachment could foster higher well-being compared with insecure attachment (i.e., anxious or avoidant attachment). Indeed, Zilcha-Mano and colleagues (2011) found that insecure-attachment patterns in human–pet relationships were associated with poor mental health. Importantly, this association was not explained by attachment insecurities in human relationships; attachment insecurity in human–pet relationships was uniquely associated with poor mental health beyond its association with attachment patterns to humans.

Apart from attachment, other work shows that self-expansion may capture the strength of the human–animal relationship. Self-expansion is defined as the capacity to integrate, to some extent, another individual's resources, perspectives, and characteristics into the self-concept (Aron et al. 1991 ). In the realm of human–animal relations, self-expansion has been measured by adapting the Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale (IOS) to assess the inclusion of one's companion animal in the self (McConnell et al. 2011 ). This feeling of closeness, proximity, and intimacy with an animal can also be beneficial to well-being (Cavanaugh et al. 2008 ).

Although the focus of this article is on our relations with companion animals, highlighting the “special” status of companion animals in human lives (Serpell and Paul 1994 ), the ways in which humans relate to animals more broadly remains an important focus for investigation. Tackling this broader view of human–animal relations requires a different type of approach, one that takes into account that such relations may be fraught with conflict and prejudice (or speciesism; Singer 2009 ). Understanding human–animal relations as an intergroup topic allows for this broader understanding. In many cases, animals may be viewed as an outgroup (i.e., a group one does not belong to) in the same way that members of other cultures, religions, or nationalities are regarded as outgroups. From this starting point, the psychological research on intergroup relations and us-versus-them dynamics becomes relevant to understanding human–animal relations (Plous 1993 ). Social psychological theories of intergroup relations (e.g., Tajfel and Turner 1986 ) are particularly useful for capturing these dynamics and for understanding cases in which human interests conflict with those of endangered species (e.g., the use of land for human development versus protecting the environment; Plous 1993 ). Just as intergroup hostility can emerge between human groups under these conditions (e.g., conflict over valued resources such as oil), so, too, can conflicting goals and competition over limited resources lead to hostility and conflict within human–animal relations.

Sometimes, too, animals themselves are the resources that humans hunt and kill. Meat eating is a longstanding human behavior. Meat is an important source of protein and calories, and by integrating meat into their diet, humans gained important benefits, such as increased body size and enhanced mobility due to increased energy levels. Eating meat also meant that less time was spent foraging for lower-quality foods and more time could be spent advancing social and cognitive abilities. Indeed, meat eating has played a central role in the emergence of human culture (Leroy and Praet 2015 ). Today, around 97% of Americans are meat eaters, with around 9 billion animals processed for meat annually (AMI 2013 ). Despite the popularity of meat, preferences for which animals are considered appropriate for consumption vary considerably. This is evident in the shocked reactions of those from the Western world when people from other cultures put their beloved companion animals, such as dogs and cats, on the menu. Denying animals human characteristics (consciousness and the capacity to think) and their individuality is a concrete strategy that allows us to distance ourselves from animals prior to harming and exploiting them (Burghardt 2009 ). These processes have been observed when people were reminded of their own meat-eating practices and the harm this brings to animals (Bastian et al. 2012 ). Even just categorizing a novel animal as food reduced concern over its welfare (Bratanova et al. 2011 ).

Other factors that are well established within the tradition of research on intergroup relations can also be applied to human–animal relations. For instance, perceiving similarities between humans and animals can lead to a perception of relatedness, empathy, and an increased desire to protect their rights (Plous 1993 ). Similarly, the tendency to anthropomorphize animals—which involves assigning them human-like characteristics, such as emotions and cognitions (Waytz et al. 2010 )—has been associated with greater concerns for their welfare (Butterfield et al. 2012 ). In summary, adopting an intergroup perspective to human–animal relations provides important insights into the broader nature of our relationships with animals and the conditions under which these relations are likely to be harmonious versus conflictual and exploitative. This wider-lens approach therefore has the potential to identify the factors leading to more versus less speciesism and to pave the way to social interventions that are likely to foster mutually beneficial relations between animals and humans.

The current article focused on the nature of human–­animal relations, with a particular emphasis on companion animals, and the implications of this relationship for both humans and animals. The evidence we reviewed also suggests that the nature of our relationships with animals has broader consequences for human–human relations. According to anthropologist Lévi-Strauss ( 1966 ), by “thinking with” animals and investigating how we interact toward other species, we can gain insights into human nature and understand human societies in new ways. These questions will become increasingly important to tackle as we (humans) are confronted with progressively scarce resources due to human overpopulation and as we need to make decisions about how to distribute these resources between both humans and animals.

[AHA] Animal Health Alliance 2013 Pet Ownership Australia Report AHA (6 August 2015; http://223.27.22.40/∼sh10135/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-2013-Summary-report-2013.pdf )

Allen KM Shykoff BE Izzo JL 2001 Pet ownership, but not ACE inhibitor therapy, blunts home blood pressure responses to mental stress Hypertension 38 815 820

Google Scholar

[AMI] American Meat Institute 2013 The United States meat industry at a glance AMI (7 November 2013; www.meatami.com/ht/d/sp/i/47465/pid/47465 ).

Amiot CE Bastian B 2015 Toward a psychology of human–animal relations Psychological Bulletin 141 6 47

[APPA] American Pet Products Association 2013 APPA National Pet Owners Survey 2013–2014 APPA (19 August 2013; www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp ).

Archer J Monton S 2011 Preference for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats Ethology 117 217 226

Aron A Aron EN Tudor M Nelson G 1991 Close relationships as including other in the self Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 241 253

Bastian B Loughnan S Haslam N Radke HRM 2012 Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 247 256

Baun MM McCabe BW 2003 Companion animals and persons with dementia of the Alzheimer's type: Therapeutic possibilities American Behavioral Scientist 47 42 51

Beck AM. 2014 The biology of the human–animal bond Animal Frontiers 4 32 36

Bernstein PL Friedmann E Malaspina A 2000 Animal-assisted therapy enhances resident social interaction and initiation in long-term care facilities Anthrozoos 13 213 224

Blazina C Boyraz G Shen-Miller D 2011 The Psychology of the Human–Animal Bond: A Resource for Clinicians and Researchers Springer

Google Preview

Bradshaw JWS Paul ES 2010 Could empathy for animals have been an adaptation in the evolution of Homo sapiens ? Animal Welfare 19 107 112

Bratanova B Loughnan S Bastian B 2011 The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals Appetite 57 193 196

Brown SW Goldstein LH 2011 Can seizure-alert dogs predict seizures? Epilepsy Research 97 236 242

Budge CR Spicer J Jones B St-George R 1998 Health correlates of compatibility and attachment in human–companion animal relationships Society and Animals 6 219 234

Burghardt GM. 2009 Ethics and animal consciousness: How rubber the ethical ruler? Journal of Social Issues 65 499 521

Burrows KE Adams CL Spiers J 2008 Sentinels of safety: Service dogs ensure safety and enhance freedom and well-being for families with autistic children Qualitative Health Research 18 1642 1649

Butterfield ME Hill SE Lord CG 2012 Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 957 960

Carlisle-Frank P Frank JM 2006 Owners, guardians, and owner–guardians: Differing relationships with pets Anthrozoos 19 225 242

Cavanaugh LA Leonard HA Scammon DL 2008 A tail of two personalities: How canine companions shape relationships and well-being Journal of Business Research 61 469 479

Cohen SP. 2002 Can pets function as family members? Western Journal of Nursing Research 24 621 638

Collin SM Granule R Westgarth C Paul E Sterne JAC Henderson AJ 2014 Pet ownership is associated with increased risk of non-atopic asthma and reduced risk of atopy in childhood: Findings from a UK birth cohort Clinical and Experimental Allergy 45 200 210

Collis GM McNicholas J Wilson CC Turner DC 1998 A theoretical basis for health benefits of pet ownership: Attachment versus psychological support 105 122 Companion Animals in Human Health Sage

De Bruin SR Oostring SJ Tobi H Enders-Slegers M-J van der Zijpp A Schols J 2012 Comparing day care at green care farms and at regular day care facilities with regard to their effects on functional performance Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice 9 503 519

DeLoache JS Pickard MB Dolins FL Mitchell RW 2010 Of chimps and children: Use of spatial symbols by two species 486 501 Spatial Cognition, Spatial Perception: Mapping the Self and Space Cambridge University Press

DeSchriver MM Riddick CC 1990 Effects of watching aquariums on elders’ stress Anthrozoos 4 44 48

Driscoll CA et al.  2007 The Near Eastern origin of cat domestication Science 317 519 523

El-Alayli A Lystad AL Webb SR Hollingsworth SL Ciolli JL 2006 Reigning cats and dogs: A pet-enhancement bias and its link to pet attachment, pet–self similarity, self-enhancement, and well-being Basic and Applied Social Psychology 28 131 143

Enders-Slegers M-J. Podberscek AL Paul ES Serpell JA 2000 The meaning of companion animals: Qualitative analysis of the life histories of elderly cat and dog owners. 237 256 Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships Between People and Pets Cambridge University Press

Fine AH. 2006 Incorporating animal-assisted therapy into psychotherapy: Guidelines and suggestions for therapists. 167 206 Fine AH Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice 2nd ed Academic Press

Friedmann E Son H 2009 The human–companion animal bond: How humans benefit Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice 39 293 326

Friedmann E Katcher AH Lynch J Thomas S 1980 Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit Public Health Reports 95 307 312

Friedmann E Thomas SA Cook LK Tsai C-C Picot SJ 2007 A friendly dog as potential moderator of cardiovascular response to speech in older hypertensives Anthrozoos 20 51 63

Gilbey A McNicholas J Collis GM 2007 A longitudinal test of the belief that companion animal ownership can help reduce loneliness Anthrozoos 20 345 353

Gray PB Young SM 2011 Human–pet dynamics in cross-cultural perspective Anthrozoos 24 17 30

Guéguen N Ciccotti S 2008 Domestic dogs as facilitators in social interaction: An evaluation of helping and courtship behaviors Anthrozoos 21 339 349

Hare B Tomasello M 2005 Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 439 444

Hawkley LC Cacioppo JT 2010 How can I connect with thee: Measuring and comparing satisfaction in multiple relationship domains Journal of Individual Psychology 66 43 67

Headey B Grabka M Kelley J Reddy P Tseng YP 2002 Pet ownership is good for your health and saves public expenditure too: Australian and German longitudinal evidence Australian Social Monitor 5 93 99

Herzog HA. 2011 The of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science 20 236 239

Herzog HA Bentley RA Hahn M 2004 Random drift and large shifts in popularity of dog breeds Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271 S353 S356

Hunt SJ Hart LA Gomulkiewicz R 1992 Role of small animals in social interactions between strangers Journal of Social Psychology 132 245 256

Johnson TP Garrity TF Stallones L 1992 Psychometric Evaluation of the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS) Anthrozoos 5 160 175

Kis A et al.  2014 Oxytocin receptor gene polymorphisms are associated with human directed social behavior in dogs ( Canis familiaris ) PLOS ONE 9 (art. e83993)

Koivusilta LK Ojanlatva A 2006 To have or not to have a pet for better health? PLOS ONE 1 (art. e109)

Kubinyi E Á Miklósi Topál J Csányi V 2003 Social mimetic behaviour and social anticipation in dogs: Preliminary results Animal Cognition 6 57 63

Lago D Kafer R Delaney M Connell C 1988 Assessment of favorable attitudes toward pets: Development and preliminary validation of self-report pet relationship scales Anthrozoos 1 240 254

Leroy F Praet I 2015 Meat traditions: The co-evolution of humans and meat Appetite 90 200 211

Levinson BM. 1969 Pet-Oriented Child Psychotherapy Charles C. Thomas

Lévi-Strauss C. 1966 The Savage Mind University of Chicago Press

LoBue V Bloom Pickard M Sherman K Axford C DeLoache JS 2013 Young children's interest in live animals British Journal of Developmental Psychology 31 57 69

Lorenz K. 1942 Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung [The innate conditions of the possibility of experience] Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 5 235 409

Lynch JJ McCarthy JF 1969 Social responding in dogs: Heart rate changes to a person Psychophysiology 5 389 393

Martens P Ender-Slegers M Walker J 2016 The emotional lives of companion animals: Attachment and subjective claims by owners of cats and dogs Anthrozoos 29 73 88

McConnell AR Brown CM Shoda TM Stayton LE Martin CE 2011 Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101 1239 1252

McCulloch M Jezierski T Broffman M Hubbard A Turner K Janecki T 2006 Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early- and late-stage lung and breast cancers Integrative Cancer Therapies 5 30 39

McNicholas J Collis GM 2000 Dogs as catalysts for social interaction: Robustness of the effect British Journal of Psychology 91 61 70

McNicholas J Gilbey A Rennie A Ahmedzai S Dono J-A Ormerod E 2005 Pet ownership and human health: A brief review of evidence and issues British Medical Journal 331 1252 1254

Melson GF. 2001 Why the Wild Things Are: Animals in the Lives of Children Harvard University Press

Messent PR Horsfield S 1985 Pet population and the pet–owner bond 7 17 Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on the Human–Pet Relationship [IEMT]. The Human–Pet Relationship IEMT

Miura A Bradshaw JWS Tanida H 2002 Childhood experiences and attitudes towards animal issues: A comparison of young adults in Japan and the UK Animal Welfare 11 437 448

Nagasawa M Mitsui S Ohtani N Ohta M Sakuma Y Onaka T Mogi K Kikusui T 2015 Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human–dog bonds Science 348 333 336

New J Cosmides L Tooby J 2007 Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 16598 16603

Nimer J Lundahl B 2007 Animal-assisted therapy: A meta-analysis Anthrozoos 20 225 238

Odendaal JSJ Lehmann SMC 2000 The role of phenylethylamine during positive human–dog interaction Acta Veterinaria Brno 69 183 188

Odendaal JSJ Meintjes RA 2003 Neurophysiological correlates of affiliative behaviour between humans and dogs Veterinary Journal 165 296 301

O'Haire ME McKenzie SJ Beck AM Slaughter V 2013 Social behaviors increase in children with autism in the presence of animals compared to toys PLOS ONE 8 (art. e57010)

Parker GB Gayed A Owen CA Hyett MP Hilton TM Heruc GA 2010 Survival following an acute coronary syndrome: A pet theory put to the test Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 121 65 70

Parslow RA Jorm AF Christensen H Rodgers B Jacomb P 2005 Pet ownership and health in older adults: Findings from a survey of 2551 community-based Australians aged 60–64 Gerontology 51 40 47

Paul ES Serpell JA 1996 Obtaining a new pet dog: Effects on middle childhood children and their families Applied Animal Behaviour Science 47 17 29

Perrin T. 2009 The Business of Urban Animals Survey: The facts and statistics on companion animals in Canada Canadian Veterinary Journal 50 48 52

Pikhartova J Bowling A Victor C 2014 Does owning a pet protect older people against loneliness? BMC Geriatrics 14 (art. 106)

Plous S. 1993 Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals Journal of Social Issues 49 11 52

Podberscek AL. 2009 Good to pet and eat: The keeping and consuming of dogs and cats in South Korea Journal of Social Issues 65 615 632

Rooney NJ Morant S Guest C 2013 Investigation into the value of trained glycaemia alert dogs to clients with type I diabetes PLOS ONE 8 (art. e69921)

Schneider MS Harley LP 2006 How dogs influence the evaluation of psychotherapists Anthrozoos 19 128 142

Schoberl I Wedl M Bauer B Day J Mostl E Kotrschal K 2012 Effects of owner–dog relationship and owner personality on cortisol modulation in human–dog dyads Anthrozoos 25 199 214

Serpell JA. 1991 Beneficial effects of pet ownership on some aspects of human health and behaviour Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 84 717 720

Serpell JA Paul ES 1994 Pets and the development of positive attitudes to animals 127 144 Manning A Serpell JA Animals and Human Society Routledge

Simons LA Simons J McCallum J Friedlander Y 2000 Pet ownership is not associated with future health: A nine-year prospective study in older Australians Australasian Journal on Ageing 19 139 142

Singer P. 2009 Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement 4th ed Harper Collins

Stull JW Peregrine AS Sargeant JM Weese JS 2013 Pet husbandry and infection control practices related to zoonotic disease risks in Ontario, Canada BMC Public Health 13 (art. 520)

Sugawara A Masud MM Yokoyama A Mizutani W Watanuki S Yanai K Itho M Tashiro M 2012 Effects of presence of a familiar pet dog on regional cerebral activity in healthy volunteers: A positron emission tomography study Anthrozoos 25 25 34

Tajfel H Turner JC 1986 The social identity theory of intergroup behavior 7 24 Worchel S Austin WG Psychology of Intergroup Relations Nelson-Hall

Waytz A Morewedge CK Epley N Monteleone G Gao J-H Cacioppo JT 2010 Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 410 435

Wells DL. 2009 The effects of animals on human health and well-being Journal of Social Issues 65 523 543

Wilson EO. 1993 Biophilia and the conservation ethics 31 41 Kellert SR Wilson EO The Biophilia Hypothesis Island Press

Wong K. Scrappy pets 2013 Scientific American 308 24

Wynne C. 2015 Did dogs hack the oxytocin love circuit? Comparing dogs to wolves doesn't necessarily inform about domestication Psychology Today (22 February 2016; www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dogs-and-their-people/201504/did-dogs-hack-the-oxytocin-love-circuit ).

Zilcha-Mano S Mikulincer M Shaver PR 2011 An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations Journal of Research in Personality 45 345 357

Zilcha-Mano S Mikulincer M Shaver PR 2012 Pets as safe havens and secure bases: The moderating role of pet attachment orientations Journal of Research in Personality 46 571 580

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

18.2: Humans and Animals

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 150349

• Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, & Marjorie M. Snipes

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Restate the scientific meaning of animal .
• Describe the human-animal continuum.
• Define multispecies ethnography.
• Identify highlights in the domestication of dogs.

The Human-Animal Continuum

Nonhuman animals are part of many facets of our lives. Many people rely on animals as part of food and subsistence systems, particularly in the areas of hunting, herding, and agriculture. Some people worship deities who are all or part animal. Many people recognize animals as symbols of clans or sports teams. For example, did your school have an animal as the mascot for its sports or debate teams? Across cultures, people love animals as pets and companions, and, as recognized by evolutionary theory, humans are connected to animals as ancestors and relatives. Animals are integral parts of the lives of humans around the world, in which they play a variety of roles. Defining an animal, however, can be complicated.

With some exceptions, an animal is defined in science as a multicellular organism, either vertebrate or invertebrate, that can breathe, move, ingest and excrete food and food products, and reproduce sexually. This clearly also includes the human species. Western philosophical tradition supports this inclusion. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) grouped animals as being blooded (e.g., humans, mammals, birds, fish), non-blooded (e.g., shelled animals, insects, soft-skinned sea animals), or what he called dualizers , with mixed characteristics (e.g., whales, who live in the sea but have live births; bats, who have four legs but fly). Aristotle classified humans as animals with the intellectual ability to reason. In 1735, Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus introduced his binomial classification , which used two terms to identify every living organism: a genus and a species designation. In his work Systema Naturae (1735), Linnaeus divided the living world into two large kingdoms, the Regnum Animale (animal kingdom) and the Regnum Vegetabile (plant kingdom). Like Aristotle before him, Linnaeus classified humans as animals. Today, the scientific approach to the study of the animal kingdom accepts that there is a continuum between all living animal species with grades of difference between species. However, even though humans are animals, people across cultures define themselves as separate from animals.

French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009) argued that cultures universally define themselves in opposition to what they view as nature , a domain they define as outside or on the margins of human culture. Humans and human culture are typically seen as everything that is not nature or animal. This makes animals and nature very important concepts to human societies, because they shed light on how people think of themselves as human beings in the world. Lévi-Strauss famously said of animals that they are “good to think” (1963, 89), meaning that animals provide good ways for humans to think about themselves . Animals are used as symbols in all cultures, a sign of the human tendency to identify similarities and differences between ourselves and (other) animals.

In all societies, culture plays an important role in shaping how people define animals. Cultures assign various meanings to animals; they are ancestral spirits or deities, companions, work animals, wild and dangerous creatures, and even objects on display in zoos or raised in factory farms for food. Think of American culture, which both loves and dotes on dogs as members of the family and raises pigs as a food commodity. In other cultures, dogs are considered a food species. Among the North American Lakota people, dog meat is considered a medicinal food (see Meyers and Weston 2020), and in Vietnam, specially designated restaurants serve dog meat as a male aphrodisiac (Avieli 2011). To further illustrate the blurring of boundaries between categories of animals, some species of pigs, such as the potbellied pig, are kept as family pets in the United States. How do cultures designate species as being one thing and not another?

The study of group identity is central to anthropology. Different cultures distinguish what is animal from what is human by comparing “the other” with themselves. Sometimes called us versus them , we versus they , or even the Other , capitalized, this binary (two-component) comparison is a human tendency observed across cultures.

It is common for cultural groups to distinguish between humans and nonhuman species and also to designate some humans as “other” and not as fully human—comparable to animals or even isolated parts of animals. In the Andes, indigenous Quechua and Aymara speakers refer to themselves as runa , meaning “people” or “humans.” Those who do not speak their languages and do not live in the Andes are, by extension, nonhuman and are typically referred to as q’ara , meaning literally “naked and bare,” referring to their lack of social ties and community (Zorn 1995). This distinction between those within the group and those without is common among Indigenous groups all over the world as well as within Western societies. Although the origin of the word frogs as an epithet (nickname) for the French is contested, it appears to have begun within France itself as a way of referring to people who lived in Paris and ate frog legs. By the late 18th century, however, frogs had begun to show up in English newspapers and other written sources as a pejorative, insulting term for all French people (Tidwell 1948). Not to be outdone, the French have traditionally referred to the English as rosbifs (roast beefs), a food common in English cuisine.

Although these examples are relatively lighthearted, there is a dark side to human-animal imagery. In a recent book, German freelance journalist Jan Mohnhaupt (2020) examines the distorted relationships that some Nazi leaders had with animals. After coming to power in Germany in 1937, the Nazi state enacted many laws against the Jewish people, among them a 1942 law that made it illegal for Jewish people to own pets, while Nazi leader Adolf Hitler doted on his dog and military commander Hermann Göring kept lions as pets. Preventing them from having companion animals was yet another way in which the Nazis sought to dehumanize Jewish people. Human-animal relationships are important to our sense of selfhood.

In this chapter, we will explore various cultures’ approaches to and understandings of nonhuman animals, including both living and symbolic animals, and the diverse ways in which humans interact with and think about these “other” beings.

Multispecies Ethnography

In his essay “Why Look at Animals?,” English art critic and poet John Berger writes, “To suppose that animals first entered the human imagination as meat or leather or horn is to project a 19th century attitude backwards across the millennia. Animals first entered the imagination as messengers and promises” ([1980] 1991, 4). Recent trends in anthropological scholarship attempt to interact with these messengers and understand the relationship that humans and animals share. The term polyspecific refers to the interactions of multiple species. The relationships shared between humans and other species began with our ancestors millions of years ago.

The specialty of human-animal studies within anthropology suggests new forms of scholarship that deliberately move away from anthropocentrism , which focuses on humans as if they are the only species that matters. Human-animal studies opens a window into different ways of thinking about what it means to be human. One approach within the specialty, called multispecies ethnography , pays careful attention to the interactions of humans and other species within their shared environment—whether those other species be plant, animal, fungal, or microbial. Multispecies ethnographies are especially focused on the study of symbiosis , which is a mutually beneficial relationship between species.

Researchers conducting multispecies ethnographies utilize a broad, holistic approach that takes into account questions such as where and how interactions between humans and animals occur. This approach is more complex than traditional ethnography because it requires that the researcher acknowledge both the perspectives of nonhuman actors and their roles in how we see and understand ourselves.

Cultural anthropologists and ecologists Kirill Istomin and Mark James Dwyer (2010) conducted multispecies ethnographies between two different herding populations in Russia: the Izhma Komi, who live in northeast European Russia, and the Nenets in western Siberia. The two groups live in environments that are comparable in terms of geography, average temperatures, and precipitation, and they herd the same subspecies of reindeer year-round. Yet their herding styles are completely different. The Izhma Komi divide their reindeer into two large groups: a family group consisting of non-castrated males, females, and calves, called a kör , and a group of castrated males used for transportation and hauling, called a byk . Herders accompany the two groups to two separate grazing grounds during the day and direct them back to camp at night. While foraging for food, the reindeer stay within their particular groups and do not wander away. In contrast, the Nenets allow their reindeer to freely disperse and wander during the day, only occasionally observing their general whereabouts and well-being. Unlike the Izhma Komi herds, which stay in their two large groups, the Nenets animals forage in smaller groups and reunite at night as a single herd when they return on their own to camp for protection. Unlike wild reindeer, who do not routinely live in and around human encampments, these groups have a symbiotic relationship with their herders. The humans get meat, some limited milk, and leather for clothing, shoes, and trade products from the reindeer, and the reindeer get protection and supplemental foods at the campsite from the herders.

Istomin and Dwyer’s research notes behaviors that the reindeer have learned from their human herders, but it also addresses social learning within the herds. In their interviews with the researchers, both Izhma Komi and Nenets herders told stories about the difficulties they faced when introducing new, so-called unmanageable animals into the herds. These new animals had not yet learned the herding routines of the group they were joining. Some wandered off and were lost before they could adapt to the particular herd culture. Istomin and Dwyer conclude that the animals themselves pass along behavioral knowledge to each other across generations as offspring follow and learn from their mothers and other adult reindeer. This conclusion challenges the notion that animal behavior is solely genetic and instinctual. Expanding ethnographies to include an understanding of what animals are doing and thinking is a primary objective of multispecies ethnography.

Despite its recent emergence in anthropology as a separate specialty, the multispecies perspective has a long history. Nineteenth-century amateur anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan’s research on the North American beaver (1868), which includes material on beavers’ adaptation to and interaction with humans, remains one of the most insightful and perceptive works on the species. And the research conducted in the 1930s by British anthropologist Edward Evans-Pritchard on the relationship between the Nuer people of Africa and their cattle resulted in an ethnographic account of their interdependence, both socially and economically.

More recently, cultural anthropologist Darrell Posey used a multispecies ethnographic approach in his work “Wasps, Warriors, and Fearless Men” (1981). In this case, the relationships of interest are between humans and insects. Posey’s work utilizes a lens of ethnoentomology , exploring the relationships that the Kayapó people of central Brazil have with local insects and how these relationships shape their perception of themselves as human. Posey documents how Kayapó warriors deliberately provoke a local species of wasp to sting them, using the “secret” of the venom to become more powerful:

The warriors dance at the foot of the scaffolding and sing of the secret strength they received from the wasps to defeat the giant beetle. The women wail ceremonially in high-pitched, emotional gasps as the warriors, two-by-two, ascend the platform to strike with their bare hands the massive hive. Over and over again they strike the hive to receive the stings of the wasps until they are semi-conscious from the venomous pain. This ceremony is one of the most important to the Kayapo: it is a re-affirmation of their humanity, a statement of their place in the universe, and a communion with the past. (172)

A Case Study: Domestication of Dogs

Humans interact with and relate to animal species that live in the wild as well as those that depend on them for their survival. Animals that are dependent on human beings are typically the result of domestication . Evidence suggests that early humans quickly developed a clear understanding of how selective breeding works, encouraging animals that shared preferred characteristics to mate and produce offspring. These desired traits included a calm temperament; the ability to get along with conspecifics , or members of one’s own species; usually a smaller body so that the animal could be gathered or herded in larger numbers; and an attachment to or tolerance of humans.

The dog ( Canis lupus familiaris ) is believed to have been among the earliest animal domesticates, possibly the first. The origins of the domesticated dog are controversial. Most scientists agree that dogs originated from wolves, particularly from the subspecies Canis lupus pallipes (Indian wolf) and Canis lupus lupus (Eurasian wolf). The wide variety among dog breeds indicates that other wolf subspecies were also involved in selective breeding, making today’s dogs animal hybrids.

Wolves have various natural instincts that make them excellent candidates for domestication. They are highly social scavengers who could easily have become accustomed to human settlements and food handouts at a young age, and they have a hierarchical social structure that includes status and submission within the pack, traits that would predispose them to conforming to human direction and domination. Dogs today vary genetically by only about 0.2 percent from some of their ancestral wolf subspecies.

Historically and cross-culturally, humans benefit in many ways from their relationships with dogs:

• Guarding and protection. Dogs are naturally territorial and highly social; they are both biologically and behaviorally prone to be keenly aware of their physical surroundings and their group (or pack). The impulse to guard and protect is a genetic trait that was easily manipulated in the species as humans selectively bred animals that were particularly loyal to their families and attentive to their property. As part of the domestication process, humans selected for dogs who exhibited a bark-howl response when alerted, with the result that domesticated dogs bark when concerned or excited. Among wolves, the bark is only used as an initial alert (Yin 2002). Wolves do not call attention to themselves as dogs do.
• Hunting. Descended as it is from a wild predator, the domestic dog can be an excellent hunter and retriever. A trained dog offers considerable benefits to humans in the hunting of prey. Some Indigenous groups, such as the Chono of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, trained their dogs to dive and to fish for seals. The Tahltan people of Canada used dogs on bear hunts. In czarist Russia, borzoi dogs were used to hunt for wolves.
• Herding. Dogs were key to the development of pastoralism, a subsistence system based on herding animals. Many pastoral societies utilized dogs as shepherds for domesticated herds of sheep, goats, cattle, and even fowl. Once trained to identify and protect its herd, a dog can be a fierce defender of and guide for animals foraging away from human settlements. Trained herding dogs can shepherd their flocks on a consistent trail without constant human surveillance. Selective breeding moderated a natural instinct in dogs referred to as eye-stalk-chase-bite , a sequence of steps utilized by dogs to focus on another animal when hunting. This moderated instinct enables dogs to guide and protect another species by keeping the animals rounded up and moving away from danger. While not utilized by every pastoral society, dogs are considered vital to most pastoral societies, even today (see the Ethnographic Sketch at the end of the chapter).

Although dogs are primarily pets in contemporary societies, they continue to play other important roles in a wide range of human activities. As just a few examples, dogs are used as drug detectives at airports, therapy animals for a wide range of human needs, and guides and helpers for those living with physical challenges. Dogs also continue to be used as shepherds, hunting companions, and guards.

Essay on Difference Between Humans and Animals

Students are often asked to write an essay on Difference Between Humans and Animals in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Difference Between Humans and Animals

Introduction.

Humans and animals share the planet but are different in many ways.

Physical Differences

Humans walk upright, have complex hands and use tools. Animals vary greatly, from fish swimming to birds flying.

Communication

Humans use languages for complex communication. Animals communicate too, but in simpler ways, like sounds or gestures.

Thought Process

Humans have advanced thinking, allowing us to plan, invent and imagine. Animals also think, but their thoughts are usually about basic survival.

Emotions and Social Structure

Both humans and animals feel emotions and form social groups, but human societies are more complex.

Despite similarities, humans and animals have significant differences, mainly due to humans’ advanced cognitive abilities.

250 Words Essay on Difference Between Humans and Animals

Humans and animals share a common biological heritage, yet there are several fundamental differences that set us apart. These differences lie in our cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence, communication, and social structures.

Cognitive Abilities

While animals possess cognitive abilities, humans demonstrate a higher level of cognition. We have the ability to reason, problem-solve, and make abstract connections. This is largely due to our highly developed prefrontal cortex, which enables complex thought processes and long-term planning.

Emotional Intelligence

Humans and animals both exhibit emotions, but humans possess a more nuanced understanding and expression of emotions. We experience a broad spectrum of emotions and have the ability to introspect, empathize, and express these emotions in sophisticated ways.

Both humans and animals communicate, but human language is uniquely complex. Our languages are symbolic, allowing us to convey abstract concepts and ideas. Animals, on the other hand, have simpler communication systems, typically used for immediate needs or threats.

Social Structures

Humans and animals live in social groups. However, human societies are far more complex, characterized by diverse roles, relationships, and institutions. Animals usually have simpler social structures, often based on dominance hierarchies.

In conclusion, while humans and animals share a biological lineage, we differ significantly in our cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence, communication, and social structures. These differences underscore the unique capabilities and complexities of the human species.

500 Words Essay on Difference Between Humans and Animals

Humans and animals are both integral parts of the natural world, sharing many basic biological characteristics. However, there are profound differences between them that go beyond physical attributes, extending to cognitive abilities, social structures, and cultural practices.

One of the most significant differences between humans and animals is cognitive ability. Humans possess advanced cognitive skills, including abstract thinking, problem-solving, and language use, which are largely absent in animals. While certain animals demonstrate rudimentary forms of these abilities, such as problem-solving in crows or sign language in apes, they do not approach the sophistication and versatility found in humans.

Humans and animals also differ significantly in their social structures. Many animal species live in social groups, like prides of lions or troops of baboons. These groups often have hierarchies, but they are typically based on physical strength or reproductive capability. In contrast, human societies are complex and multi-faceted, incorporating economic, political, and cultural dimensions. They are not solely determined by biological factors but are shaped by shared beliefs, customs, and laws.

Culture and Symbolism

Culture is another area where humans and animals diverge. Humans create and pass down complex cultural practices, from art and music to religion and science. These practices involve symbolic thinking, a cognitive ability that allows humans to use symbols to represent and communicate ideas. While animals have been observed using simple tools and engaging in learned behavior, they do not exhibit the symbolic thought necessary for cultural production.

Moral and Ethical Considerations

Lastly, humans demonstrate a capacity for moral and ethical reasoning that is not evident in animals. Humans can contemplate the consequences of their actions, consider the rights and wrongs, and make decisions based on these reflections. This capacity is tied to humans’ advanced cognitive abilities and underpins many aspects of human society, including law and justice.

In conclusion, while humans and animals share biological similarities and basic life processes, they differ significantly in cognitive abilities, social structures, cultural practices, and moral reasoning. These differences are not merely a matter of degree but represent fundamental distinctions in the way humans and animals interact with the world. Understanding these differences can provide valuable insights into human nature and our place in the natural world.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Human Rights Day
• Essay on Importance of Human Rights
• Essay on Human Values

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.