2013/05/04 by David D. Blouin · 142 citations
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Animal and Plant Science Education #Animal welfare #Animal-assisted therapy #Creatures #Ecology #Entertainment #Environmental ethics #Geographies of human-animal interactions #Geography #HUBzero #Human-Animal Interaction Studies #Humanism #Natural (archaeology) #Pet therapy #Political science #Psychology #Social psychology #Sociology #Typology #Value (mathematics)
paper · doi:10.2752/175303713x13636846944402
published in Anthrozoös 26(2), 279-294 (Taylor & Francis)
openalex publication_date 2013/05/04 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/30
This paper examines the variations in dog owners' attitudes toward, treatment of, and interactions with, animals. Based on 28 in-depth interviews with dog owners from a county in the Midwestern United States, I demonstrate that pets are an important part of many people's lives, often providing companionship, entertainment, and meaningful interactions; however, there are notable, distinct variations in how people relate to them. Pet owners typically exhibit one of three orientations toward pets: “dominionistic,” “humanistic,” or “protectionistic.” The dominionistic have relatively low regard for their pets, valuing them primarily for the uses they provide, such as protection. Those employing the humanistic orientation elevate their pets to the status of surrogate humans and value their pets primarily for the affective benefits they enjoy from their close attachments. The protectionistic have high regard for both pets and animals more generally. They view pets as valuable companions and as creatures with their own interests. This typology offers insights for understanding the source and variety of the often ambiguous and contradictory relations between people and pets. I argue that individual characteristics and experiences impact how people understand and relate to animals, in large part, because they represent exposure to different cultural messages. I suggest that these orientations represent three sets of distinct cultural logics, each with distinct histories and contemporary sources.