{"id":4787,"date":"2025-02-24T12:49:17","date_gmt":"2025-02-24T11:49:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/?page_id=4787"},"modified":"2025-02-24T12:51:07","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T11:51:07","slug":"human-animal-interactions","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/human-animal-interactions\/","title":{"rendered":"Psychological perspectives on human-animal interactions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Marija Brankovi\u0107<\/span><\/p>\n

Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade and Faculty of Media and Communication, Singidunum University<\/span><\/p>\n

marija.brankovic@ifdt.bg.ac.rs<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

As contemporary neuroscience demonstrates, non-human animals are sentient beings with the ability to experience pain, anxiety, attachment, and many other psychological states. In addition to highlighting the well-being of animals, scientific research shows inextricable links between the well-being of animals and the health and well-being of humans, as animal exploitation is shown to bear severe consequences for environmental pollution, the spread of zoonoses, as well as human health and longevity. Recent psychological research contributes to this more general trend, taking up the study of human-animal interactions, in particular within social, political, and clinical psychology.\u00a0 From a psychological perspective, our relationship with non-human animals provides an opportunity to study the fundamentals of social perception, categorization, inter-group relations, prejudice, and justifications of social inequalities. On a more positive note, human-animal interactions can also improve the quality of attachment and psychological well-being.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This symposium aims to provide a glimpse into the innovative research focused on human-animal interactions that are being conducted in our country. We will present several lines of research into both positive and negative aspects of human-animal interactions. Milica Ninkovi\u0107 and Marija Petrovi\u0107 will present a study that analyzed the ideological and attitudinal foundations of speciesism, the belief in human moral superiority over animals, with a particular focus on beliefs that support social hierarchy. Anastasija Bud\u017eak and Zoran Pavlovi\u0107 examined how the perceptions of similarity between animals and humans affect attitudes toward animals and ethnic outgroups. Marija Brankovi\u0107, Janko Me\u0111edovi\u0107, and Anastasija Bud\u017eak delved into the individual differences that predict attitudes toward non-human animals, examining the intricate relationships between Dark Tetrad traits, empathy, basic ideological attitudes (social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism) and speciesism. Vesna Mikuli\u0107 and Marija Brankovi\u0107 examined perceptions of people who care about abandoned animals along the basic dimensions of warmth and competence, as well as whether speciesism predicts the positivity of these perceptions. Finally, Tamara D\u017eamonja Ignjatovi\u0107 and Anastasija Bud\u017eak will present a review of therapeutic interventions based on the interactions between humans and non-human animals in an effort to improve both physical and psychological well-being among humans of different ages.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/span><\/i>: human-animal interactions, speciesism, sentience, prejudice, social hierarchy, wellbeing<\/span><\/p>\n

Talks<\/h3>\n

They\u2019re not like us: Competitive jungle beliefs predict speciesism<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Milica Ninkovi\u0107 & Marija Petrovi\u0107<\/span><\/p>\n

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology and LIRA Lab<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

The sentiment that humans should be treated as superior to animals (i.e., speciesism) is often used to justify their exploitation. As it entails a strong belief in a hierarchy of importance among living beings, it might be embedded in a particular worldview. For example, unfair treatment of animals might be a manifestation of the naive Darwinian beliefs that the world is a competitive jungle in which we must fight over scarce resources to survive. It can also stem from a general perception of the world as a perilous place with constant threats to our well-being. On a more fundamental level, speciesism may result from a strong desire for societal order and support for hierarchy and authority that extends beyond human outgroups to non-human animals. To examine the sociopolitical footprint of speciesism, we recruited 655 participants (66% women) aged 18-80 (M = 45.4, SD = 12.2). Alongside speciesism (\u03b1 = .84), they filled in measures of Authoritarianism (\u03b1 = .74), Social Dominance Orientation (\u03b1 = .89), Competitive jungle (\u03b1 = .86), and Dangerous world beliefs (\u03b1 = .86), as well as two single-item measures of economic and social ideological self-placement. The results indicate that speciesism is related to higher SDO (<\/span>r <\/span><\/i>= .27), Authoritarianism (<\/span>r <\/span><\/i>= .18), and both social (<\/span>r <\/span><\/i>= .17) and economic (<\/span>r <\/span><\/i>= .12) right-wing ideology. Conversely, regarding worldview beliefs, speciesism was related only to the competitive jungle (<\/span>r <\/span><\/i>= .28) but not dangerous worldview beliefs. To examine the relative contribution of these predictors, we ran a hierarchical linear regression predicting speciesism. In the first step, authoritarianism, SDO, and ideology explained 8% of the variance (<\/span>F <\/span><\/i>(5, 650) = 15.56, <\/span>p <\/span><\/i>< .001), with SDO (\ua7b5 = .21, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> < .001) and economic ideology (\ua7b5 = .09, <\/span>p <\/span><\/i>= .013) as significant predictors. Adding Competitive jungle and Dangerous world beliefs in the second step improved the predictive power of the model (\u0394<\/span>R<\/span><\/i>2<\/span><\/i> = .05, \u0394<\/span>F <\/span><\/i>(2,648) = 18.46, p < .001), with two worldview beliefs contributing in opposite directions. Individuals who endorsed competitive jungle beliefs were more likely to endorse speciesism (\ua7b5 = .22, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> < .001), while those higher in dangerous world beliefs were less likely to endorse it (\ua7b5 = -.15, <\/span>p <\/span><\/i>< .001).\u00a0 Our results indicate that speciesism is rooted in support for societal hierarchy and that it can be viewed as a manifestation of naive social Darwinism.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/span><\/i>: Speciesism, Competitive Jungle Beliefs, Social Dominance Orientation<\/span><\/p>\n

Isn’t it wonderful that we’re alike?: The effects of emphasizing human-animal similarities on relations towards animals and ethnic minority groups<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Anastasija Bud\u017eak<\/span>a<\/span><\/sup> & Zoran Pavlovi\u0107<\/span>b<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n

a <\/sup>Faculty for Media and Communications, Singidunum University<\/span><\/p>\n

b <\/sup>Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea of generalized prejudice is empirically confirmed through the existence of the common basis of prejudice against different human groups and animals.\u00a0Research shows that the ways we think about animals and our willingness to exploit them also reflect our beliefs about marginalized social groups. The way we make social comparisons is of great importance for the formation of attitudes towards members of outgroups. If comparisons are based on perceiving similarities, attitudes towards outgroups will be more positive, even regarding animals. Studies confirmed more positive feelings toward animals, which are perceived to be phylogenetically, behaviorally, and cognitively more similar to humans. We designed an intervention that highlighted similarities between animals and humans with the aim of reducing speciesism and perceptions of animal nature threat and increasing greater identity inclusion about ethnic groups and positive attitudes towards ethnic groups in our country. More positive attitudes towards minority groups included reduced dehumanization and social distance. Participants (<\/span>N<\/span><\/i> = 265) were randomly assigned to an experimental group that read a text about similarities between animals and humans or to a control group that read a text about tulips. The results showed that the two groups of respondents differed significantly in terms of speciesism (<\/span>Me<\/span><\/i> = 2.42 <\/span>SDe<\/span><\/i> = .95; <\/span>Mc<\/span><\/i> = 2.71 <\/span>SDc<\/span><\/i> = .91), <\/span>t<\/span><\/i> (262.94) = -2.55, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> = .01, \u03b72 = .02) (\u03b1 = .76), animal nature threat (<\/span>Me<\/span><\/i> = 1.6 <\/span>SDe<\/span><\/i> = 1.35; <\/span>Mc<\/span><\/i> = 1.96 <\/span>SDc<\/span><\/i> = 1.50), <\/span>t<\/span><\/i> (258.68) = -1.99, p = .01, \u03b72= .01), identity inclusion (<\/span>Me<\/span><\/i> = 3.83 <\/span>SDe<\/span><\/i> = 1.79; Mc = 3.27 <\/span>SDc<\/span><\/i> = 1.50), <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> (256.87) = 2.74, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> = .01, \u03b72 = .03) and dehumanization (<\/span>Me<\/span><\/i> = 85.09 <\/span>SDe <\/span><\/i>= 16.85; <\/span>Mc<\/span><\/i> = 72.98 <\/span>SDc <\/span><\/i>= 19.14, <\/span>t<\/span><\/i> (257.28) = 5.47, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> = .00, \u03b72 = .10) (\u03b1 = .94)\u00a0 . Induction of human-animal similarity did not lead to significant differences in terms of social distance towards ethnic groups (<\/span>Me<\/span><\/i> = 58.69 <\/span>SDe<\/span><\/i> = 24.08; <\/span>Mc<\/span><\/i> = 61.47 <\/span>SDc<\/span><\/i> = 21.87), <\/span>t <\/span><\/i>(261.60) = -.98, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> = .33, \u03b72 = .00) (\u03b1 = .92). Encouraging the perception of similarities between humans and animals leads to improved attitudes towards both animals and human out-groups. Therefore, public communications should highlight that animals also have the capacity for thinking and for various emotions such as joy, fear, pride, shame, and empathy, and, through it, contribute to more positive and humane intergroup relations in society.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/span><\/i>: human-animal similarity, human-animal relations, speciesism, dehumanization, identity inclusion<\/span><\/p>\n

On being dark and speciesist: How Dark Tetrad traits, empathy, and basic ideological dimensions predict attitudes toward animals<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Marija Brankovi\u0107a,b<\/sup><\/span>*<\/span>, Janko Me\u0111edovi\u0107c<\/sup><\/span>, Anastasija Bud\u017eak<\/span>b<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

a<\/sup>Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade<\/span><\/p>\n

b<\/sup>Faculty of Media and Communications, Singidunum University<\/span><\/p>\n

c<\/sup>Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research<\/span><\/p>\n

Speciesism designates a belief that humans should be treated as morally superior to other animals, disregarding non-human animals\u2019 ability to suffer. In a previous study, we showed that speciesism is predicted by two of the Dark Tetrad traits: psychopathy and sadism. This study aimed to examine the mechanisms through which Dark Tetrad traits (psychopathy and sadism) predict speciesism. We explored several mediators, including empathy toward non-human animals: cognitive, affective, and empathic concern, as well as the general social attitude dimensions of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. In this study, we recruited 234 students (86.3% women). We asked participants to indicate their endorsement of speciesism (\u03b1 = .78), along with psychopathy (\u03b1 = .68), sadism (\u03b1 = .76), three aspects of empathy: affective (\u03b1 = .94), cognitive (\u03b1 = .95), and motivational (\u03b1 = .80) and general social attitudes: social dominance orientation (\u03b1 = .90) and right-wing authoritarianism (\u03b1 = .80). We conducted a path analysis to examine the mediational models, controlling for gender, age and educational level. The overall model had acceptable fit, \u03c7\u00b2 (8) = 2.14;\u00a0<\/span>p\u00a0<\/span><\/i>= .013; NFI = .93; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .08.\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0= .13, and explained 41% of the variance in speciesism. We observed significant direct paths between speciesism and gender (\u03b2 = .14; <\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0< .001), social dominance orientation (\u03b2 = .18;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0< .001), affective empathy (\u03b2 = -.24;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0= .037), cognitive empathy (\u03b2 = -.11;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0< .01), and motivational concern (\u03b2 = -.38;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0< .001). Social dominance orientation fully mediated the link between psychopathy and speciesism (\u03b2 = .06;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0= .01) and partly mediated the effects of affective empathy (\u03b2 = .03;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0= .04); motivational empathy (\u03b2 = -.03;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0= .045); and cognitive empathy (\u03b2 = -.03;\u00a0<\/span>p<\/span><\/i>\u00a0= .02). The findings reveal that the Dark Tetrad of personality has systematic ties to attitudes toward animals. However, the basic social\/ideological attitudes are the more proximal predictors. These findings are also relevant to the literature on the link between violence toward animals and violence toward humans.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/span><\/i>: Dark Tetrad, sadism, psychopathy, speciesism, empathy, human-animal relations\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Perceived warmth and competence of people who care for abandoned animals<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Vesna Pavlovi\u0107 Mikuli\u0107a<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0& Marija Brankovi\u0107a,b<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

a <\/sup>Faculty<\/span> of Media and Communications, Singidunum University<\/span><\/p>\n

b<\/sup> <\/span>Institute<\/span> for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade<\/span><\/p>\n

Caring for abandoned animals\u2014such as feeding or adopting them\u2014often evokes mixed social responses. This study explores stereotypes toward people who care for and rescue abandoned animals (\u201erescuers\u201c), with a focus on perceptions of their warmth and competence. We also examined the potential influence of speciesism, the belief in the moral superiority of humans over other animals, on these perceptions. We hypothesized that people who score higher on speciesist attitudes are more likely to view caregivers as warm but less competent. Using a correlational-regression design, a convenience sample of 157 participants (121 women, 35 men, average age 37) was recruited online in Serbia and Croatia. Participants indicated their perceived warmth (\u03b1 = 0.69) and competence (\u03b1 = 0.77) of people who care for abandoned animals, and the Speciesism Scale (\u03b1 = 0.79),<\/span> adapted from Brankovi\u0107 (2021). Results indicated a statistically significant difference between warmth and competence perceptions, with rescuers viewed as significantly warmer (<\/span>M <\/span><\/i>= 19.86, <\/span>SD <\/span><\/i>= 3.33) than competent (<\/span>M <\/span><\/i>= 14.44, <\/span>SD <\/span><\/i>= 3.58) (<\/span>t <\/span><\/i>(155) = 15.97, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> < .01).<\/span> Speciesism correlated negatively with perceptions of competence of the rescuers (<\/span>r<\/span><\/i> = -0.183, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> < .01). However, we did not observe a positive correlation between speciesism and the perception of warmth of people who help abandoned animals (<\/span>r<\/span><\/i> = 0.017, <\/span>p<\/span><\/i> > .01). This research suggests that societal stereotypes about rescuers emphasize warmth over competence, potentially due to perceptions that their activities reflect compassion but lack practicality. The findings highlight the influence of speciesist attitudes on these stereotypes, suggesting that stereotypes about people who care for abandoned animals reflect the attitude toward animals. This study contributes to understanding social attitudes toward animal caregivers and has implications for improving societal views and support systems for such initiatives.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/span><\/i>:<\/b> speciesism, warmth and competence, stereotypes, abandoned animal caregivers<\/span><\/p>\n

Animals as successful \u201ctherapists\u201d – relation matters: A literature review of effective treatment programs in mental health<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Tamara D\u017eamonja Ignjatovi\u0107a<\/sup><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>& Anastasija Bud\u017eakb<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

a<\/sup><\/span>Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade<\/span><\/p>\n

b<\/sup><\/span>Faculty for Media and Communications, Singidunum University<\/span><\/p>\n

The well-being that children and adults get through the development of relationships with animals has been recognized in people’s everyday experiences, and it has also been empirically proven. The benefits of human-animal interaction include cognitive, emotional, and behavioral segments. Animal support programs represent a targeted intervention in which the central part of the treatment involves the interaction of people and animals. They are designed to encourage improvement in terms of the physical, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning of people. We present a brief review of treatment programs in which different animals assist in improving mental health in children, adults, and older people. In this paper, we systematize different types of support programs depending on the context of application and the aspect of mental health and analyze in more detail some of the successful programs implemented in Serbia (e.g., autistic children and therapeutic horses, prisoners and dogs in Sremska Mitrovica), as well as some of the programs in the world (dolphins and children with developmental difficulties, dogs in an educational context). Animal support programs are effective in therapeutic work, in educational and academic contexts, in nursing homes and healthcare facilities, to help soldiers with PTSD, the testimony of traumatized children in court, in rehabilitation programs, improving physical health, etc. Effects on stress, anxiety, and depression reduction, development of self-confidence, prosocial behavior, responsibility, empathy, and facilitated socialization in children were also recorded. Summarizing the positive effects of the support program with animals, we also suggest how the observed methodological shortcomings should be repaired (better methodological control, with more precise objectives and more measurable data through longitudinal studies, more adequate and precise conducting of the studies based on pre-test and post-test design) and recommend implementation of such programs in our country.<\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/span><\/i>: animal-assisted therapy, human-animal relations, therapeutic animals, mental health and animals<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Marija Brankovi\u0107 Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade and Faculty of Media and Communication, Singidunum University marija.brankovic@ifdt.bg.ac.rs As contemporary neuroscience demonstrates, non-human animals are sentient beings with the ability to experience pain, anxiety, attachment, and many other psychological states. In addition to highlighting the well-being of animals, scientific research shows inextricable links […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4787","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"translation":{"provider":"WPGlobus","version":"2.12.2","language":"en","enabled_languages":["rs","en"],"languages":{"rs":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false},"en":{"title":true,"content":true,"excerpt":false}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4787"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4787"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4787\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4790,"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4787\/revisions\/4790"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/empirijskaistrazivanja.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}