Written by Dr Heather Clements, Lecturer in Psychology, Centre for Applied Psychological Science, Cognition and Decision making theme
Research on the relationship between human-animal interaction (HAI) and human well-being is somewhat controversial. Ask any pet owner about their furry friend and they will likely tell you that their pet is a member of the family, provides them with companionship, gives them a sense of purpose, helps them to keep physically active, or otherwise supports their well-being. Capturing this relationship through quantitative methods has proved difficult, however, with studies showing a mix of positive, negative and null relationships between pet ownership and well-being. My own research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic reflected these wider findings; qualitatively people felt their pets had a positive impact on their well-being (although they also caused some unique stresses!), but no quantitative relationship between pet ownership and well-being was observed (Clements et al., 2021). This discrepancy between pet owner beliefs and the quantitative evidence likely stems from the complex nature of human-animal relations; factors such as the species and temperament of the animal, the amount of time owners spend interacting with their pet, and the strength of the human-animal bond all likely play a role.
While the relationship between HAI and human well-being requires further investigation, recently, my research interests have turned to a question less well explored from a psychological perspective. Specifically, what impact does interacting with humans have on the welfare of companion animals? Whereas other disciplines within anthrozoology – the study of human-animal relations – have explored the impact of HAI on animal welfare, psychological research typically focuses on outcomes in humans. Therefore, it’s important that we consider how human behaviour may impact animal welfare within the context of HAI.
One factor to explore further is anthropomorphism: the attribution of humanlike traits onto non-human animals and inanimate objects. It has been linked to increased concern for companion animal welfare, but also to the misinterpretation of animal behaviour, and to human behaviours that can compromise the welfare of companion animals (Mota-Rojas et al., 2021). Anthropomorphism tends to occur for species that are more similar to humans in terms of appearance and behaviour, and those which are more closely related to us from an evolutionary perspective (Urquiza-Haas & Kotrschal, 2015). This raises a question as to whether anthropomorphism could influence the level of concern we feel for different types of animals that are commonly kept as pets. For example, could anthropomorphism lead to greater concern for the welfare of dogs or cats compared to fishes or invertebrates, and what influence could this have upon the treatment of those animals?
Another topic of interest relates to how human-animal relations may be understood in terms of intergroup processes. Social psychological theories, such as Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), argue that our identities are shaped by the social groups to which we belong. They centre around the automatic processes of categorisation and comparison. Normal social cognitive processes lead us to categorise people into social groups, often based on physical features such as gender or race; the groups to which we belong (ingroups) are then compared to the ones that we don’t (outgroups), and to maintain our positive social identity, ingroups are evaluated more favourably than outgroups. This can lead to issues such as prejudice and intergroup conflict.
These theories were traditionally applied to the relations between human social groups, but there is increasing recognition that these automatic processes may also apply to animals and might be implicated in issues such as speciesism and the exploitation of animals for human gain (Dhont, Hodson, Loughnan & Amiot, 2019). By understanding the psychological processes that contribute to the perception of animals as lesser than humans, it may be possible to reduce these biases, which could have important implications for animal welfare. It is also possible that these processes may interact with factors such as anthropomorphism; could the animals that we more readily anthropomorphise be more easily categorised as ingroup members, and how might this influence how we treat different types of companion animal?
In sum, psychology has much more to contribute to the field of human-animal relations, both in terms of furthering our understanding of the relationship between HAI and human well-being, but also in terms of understanding how our behaviour can impact the welfare of our companion animals.
References
Clements, H., Valentin, S., Jenkins, N., Rankin, J., Gee, N. R., Snellgrove, D., & Sloman, K. A. (2021). Companion animal type and level of engagement matter: A mixed-methods study examining links between companion animal guardianship, loneliness and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Animals, 11(8), 2349. DOI: 10.3390/ani11082349
Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Loughnan, S., & Amiot, C. E. (2019). Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 769-784. DOI: 10.1177/1368430219864455
Mota-Rojas, D., Mariti, C., Zdeinert, A., Riggio, G., Mora-Medina, P., del Mar Reyes, A., … & Hernández-Ávalos, I. (2021). Anthropomorphism and its adverse effects on the distress and welfare of companion animals. Animals, 11(11), 3263. DOI: 10.3390/ani11113263
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
Urquiza-Haas, E. G., & Kotrschal, K. (2015). The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: Attribution of mental states to other species. Animal Behaviour, 109, 167–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.08.011