Cited by 58Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesGeographies of human-animal interactions

Are we ignoring neutral and negative human-animal relationships in zoos?: Negative Zoo Human-Animal Relationships

Hosey, Geoff, Melfi, Vicky·2015·Zoo Biology

Abstract

Human-animal interactions (HAI), which may lead to human-animal relationships (HAR), may be positive, neutral, or negative in nature. Zoo studies show that visitors may be stressful, may have no effect, or may be enriching. There is also evidence that good HARs set up between animals and their keepers can have positive effects on animal welfare. However, we need to know more about negative HARs, and as a first step we attempt to do this here by considering cases where animals attack people in the zoo. Due to the sensitivity and rarity of these events data appear sparse and unsystematically collected. Here, information available in the public domain about the circumstances of these attacks has been collated to test hypotheses about negative HAIs derived from a model of zoo HARs. The limited data presented here broadly support the zoo HAR model, and suggest that attacks usually happen in unusual circumstances, where there may be a failure by the animal to recognise the HAR, or where the relationship, if there is one, does not hold; and give some support to the prediction that exposure to many keepers may impair the development of a positive HAR. This study may provide useful information for the zoo community to proactively collect systematic standardised records, which will enable a fuller understanding of zoo HARs, upon which appropriate measures might be adopted to build better zoo HARs, which are likely to positively impact zoo animal welfare, and reduce these rare incidence…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.21182

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hosey, G., & Melfi, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Greater Manchester (GB)
  • Taronga Conservation Society Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Hosey, Geoff
Venue
Zoo Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-18
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
1-8
ISSN
0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1494811143
Cited by
58
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Zoo Biology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographies of human-animal interactions
Keywords
human-animal relations, zoo animal welfare, zookeepers
MeSH terms
Aggression, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare, Animals, Zoo, Behavior, Animal, Human-Animal Bond, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Models, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review