Searching where the treasure is: on the emergence of human companion animal partnership (HCAP)

Abstract

In our view, the discipline, often referred to as human–animal interaction (HAI), lacks a well-defined conceptual framework. It is too narrow both with respect to the animal species investigated and the nature of human–animal interactions studied. So instead, we introduce the term human–companion animal partnership (HCAP) that is not only a better descriptor for most research efforts within HAI but also helps to direct research efforts on an ethological basis. In our approach, ‘companion’ is a function and not a feature of some species. This means that many species had and could have a potential to form mixed social groups with humans if they evolve some capacity of social competence. This view may initiate new comparative research involving a range of species to find out how complex social engagement could be maintained in such hetero-specific social groups based on evolutionary heritage, recent selection and individual experience (socialisation). Our approach emphasises the role of human caring behaviour and social competence in the emergence of a partnership with several species, and thus could also help in setting expectations for welfare and aid in designing artificial companions for specific purposes.

Toward more equal and mutual human-pet relations: Insights and possible solutions based on social psychological theories

“…On these bases, human-pet contact could be structured so that it directly promotes the beneficial mechanisms of empathy and perspective taking. In this vein, different researchers have argued in favor of taking the pets' own perspectives, histories, and specificities to build more mutual human-pet relations ( 20 , 55 – 57 ). Concretely, empathy and perspective taking could be maximized in the context of human-pet relations as one learns to care for and attend to their pet's own needs (rather than by adopting an anthropocentric view of one's pet's needs and preferences).…”

“…Indeed, according to Miklosi and colleagues: “If the (human-pet) partnership is based on social competence and caring (…), then we expect (this) interaction to emerge as a result of mutual interest and on average it should have a positive effect on all partners. In other words, practice must be mutually beneficial to be considered both ethical and effective” [( 20 ) p. 391]. Furthermore, focusing on the health and wellbeing benefits that humans derive from our relationships with pets, and assuming that these relations will automatically (and instrumentally) benefit us humans, is not warranted based on the scientific evidence ( 23 , 57 , 132 ).…”

“…It should be noted that the solutions presented herein do not aim to build completely equal relations between people and animals, in an absolute sense (e.g., in terms of equal societal rights and obligations, or in terms of access to the same resources); rather, the underlying goal is to provide more power to pets, in daily life and within realistic limits, relative to the power and control that some pets may currently have. By mutual relations, we mean relations where both humans and pets benefit from the relationship ( 6 , 20 – 22 ). And while other research has focused on the factors that explain why humans prioritize their own species rather than others ( 23 ), the current paper specifically focuses on solutions for attenuating this tendency, specifically within human-pet relations.…”