Human–Pet Dynamics in Cross-Cultural Perspective

Abstract

Pets increasingly serve the function as emotional surrogates of children, with tremendous resources poured into their care. However, this function of pets may be quite different from the typical human-pet dynamics characterizing a wider array of societies. To help fill a gap in the cross-cultural understanding of pets, we employed the probability sample of the electronic Human Relations Area Files (eHRAF), covering 60 societies, to code for various features of human-pet dynamics. The findings revealed that dogs are the most commonly kept pets, followed by birds, cats, and other animals including horses, rodents, and reptiles. Dogs, cats, and other pets frequently served valuable functions such as aiding in hunting and pest removal. Birds, dogs, and some other pets also served as playthings, particularly the young of these animals and for the enjoyment of human children. Feeding, sleeping, and positive and negative interactions varied across societies and pets. Dogs, cats, birds, and other pets were frequently killed-and sometimes eaten-and dogs frequently subject to physical abuse. These data illustrate both similarities and differences cross-culturally in human-pet dynamics as well as many stark contrasts with how pets such as dogs in the US are treated today.

“Animals are friends, not food”: Anthropomorphism leads to less favorable attitudes toward meat consumption by inducing feelings of anticipatory guilt

“…It could also be explored whether, as aforementioned, pre-existing (positive or negative) stereotypes about these animals (mammals or non-mammals) interact with the effects of anthropomorphism. Additionally, another metaphor "animals are family members" could appear to be more suitable than the friendship metaphor to anthropomorphize certain animals in some cultures (Amiot & Bastian, 2017;Belk, 1996;Gray & Young, 2011;Hirschman, 1994). Using more subtle forms of anthropomorphism by simply calling the restaurant or company "Mr. Piggy's" or "Mr. Moo's" could also further document weak forms of anthropomorphism.…”

Primates on display: Potential disease consequences beyond bushmeat

“…The desire to tame or control other species appears central to our own species (Shipman, ). While there has always been and still remains significant cultural variation in how animals are treated and for what purposes they have been either bred or controlled (Gray & Young, ; Hurn, ), viewing animals on exhibit has a long history. This includes private animal collections, circuses, animal fighting, baiting, trophy hunting, racing, rodeos, bullfighting, and similar encounters, and of course permanent institutions like zoos and aquariums.…”

“…The following US allows private ownership of primates with a permit: Idaho, Connecticut (although Great apes are prohibited), Florida (although Great apes and baboons are prohibited), Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas. Despite the popularity in the U.S., Europe, and many indigenous areas, primates function as “playthings” in only six of sixty societies surveyed using the Human Relations Area Files (Gray & Young, ). Privately keeping small monkey species is rather common in Southeast Asia, West Africa, and South America (Jones‐Engel et al, 2005; Malone et al, ).…”

Our Wild Companions: Domestic cats in the Anthropocene

“…While, in some regions, cats are still treated more as commensals than pets [12], companionship has become the cat's primary role in many societies. As household pets, cats provide company, affection, and enjoyment for millions of people, and, in some cases, cat ownership may also confer health benefits (although evidence is mixed) [13].…”