Studies in the field of human–animal interaction tend to highlight the positive results of the influence of animals on humans, which supports the popular belief that the human–animal bond positively affects humans’ well-being (“pet-effect”). Nevertheless, contradictory results exist that seem especially visible since the COVID-19 pandemic, a prominent external stressor. Despite critical findings, individuals seem to want to believe in the beneficial effects of the human–animal relationship (“pet-effect paradox”). Based on this background, the present study aims to investigate this phenomenon using a mixed-method design. Therefore, animal caregivers were surveyed online and compared using psychometric measurements and open-ended questions. In this context, a special focus was placed on the additional stressor of Long-Covid and related concerns. The results demonstrate once more the existence of the “pet-effect paradox” due to a contradiction in the quantitative and qualitative results. At a quantitative level, the findings show additional burdens on animal caregivers who are confronted with multiple loads. However, the qualitative results indicate a belief in the beneficial effects of pets at the biopsychosocial level. Additionally, the data demonstrate a shift in focus away from the environment to oneself when affected by Long-Covid, which might affect the ability to care for an animal.

No abstract

No abstract

Recent European integration discourses are more and more structured by neo-racist topoi based on orientalist markers of difference. In the Austrian debate people of Turkish origins are particularly affected by such ascriptions. They are marked as a group not willing to integrate and culturally not fitting into Austrian society. In this discursive conglomerate women are identified as oppressed victims, lacking education and being in need of help. Using biographical narratives of young Austrian-Turkish women this paper reconstructs four modi of dealing with these discursive ascriptions and experiences of neo-racist othering: retreating and pragmatically reducing ambitions, trivializing racist experiences and assimilating to the mainstream, naming facts and aiming to improve the situation by communication, delegitimizing and ironically transcending racism.

More than ever, ‘the headscarf’ is a dominant trope in contemporary ‘Western’ discourses on migration. Within controversies on Muslim ‘others’, ethnicity and gender frequently interweave. In discussions about the Muslim woman, a problematic dichotomy frequently emerges: namely the representation of a Muslim woman who wears the headscarf and is seen as ‘oppressed’ or ‘traditional’. This is opposed to the position of a Muslim woman who does not wear the headscarf and is simultaneously considered a ‘self-determined’ or ‘modern’ Muslim woman. Against this backdrop, this contribution adopts a critical perspective on dichotomising discourses on Muslim women’s practices in relation to wearing the headscarf. In this article the authors examine narrative interviews with four Muslim women, focusing on their subjective experiences and psychological coping strategies with dichotomous and dichotomising stereotypes. An in-depth qualitative analysis shows that these women display a need to constantly justify and negotiate their own positions in relation to wearing the headscarf, regardless of whether the interviewed women actually wear a headscarf or not. Based on this, the authors identify different psychological coping strategies and discuss them critically in a wider framework that draws attention to existing social hierarchies.