CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 197Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal and Plant Science Education

A preliminary model of human-animal relationships in the zoo

Open access
Hosey, Geoff·2008·Applied Animal Behaviour Science
DOI 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The concept of the human–animal relationship (HAR) is widely used in farm animal research to describe the outcome of the different qualities and quantities of interaction between stockpersons and the animals in their care. Thus, negative, positive or neutral HARs may result from the effect of mostly negative (e.g. rough handling), neutral (e.g. no handling) or positive (e.g. gentle handling) interactions. In this paper the concept is applied to zoo animals in an attempt to provide a model not only of HARs between zoo animals and keepers, but also between zoo animals and unfamiliar people, primarily the visiting public. Behavioural responses of animals to zoo visitors are inconsistent both within and between taxa, and the history of interactions the individual animal has experienced, and hence the HARs it has developed, may be one of the variables that leads to this inconsistency. The model starts, like the farm animal models, with the animals’ fear of humans, which is itself dependent upon species. The subsequent history of interactions the animal experiences, both with familiar and unfamiliar people, then determines the animal's HAR, which in turn influences the way the animal responds to people. There are currently insufficient data to test the model, but predictions of the model are identified here which could be used to test it.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.013

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Penguins are a common zoo-housed species, especially little penguins in Australian zoos.

    “Limited research has been conducted to examine the effects of visitors on zoo-housed penguins despite penguins being a commonly housed zoo species, especially little penguins (Eudyptula minor) in Australian zoos [3,10,11,12,13,14,15].”

    From Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) (2020) · cites this paper as [13]

    Section 4.5 (Spheniscids; page unavailable) discusses studies of visitor effects on zoo-housed penguins and says the data are sparse, supporting the limited-research portion of the citing sentence. It does not say penguins are commonly housed in zoos or that little penguins are especially common in Australian zoos. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Hosey developed the model based on Hediger's early suggestion that humans could potentially be significant to animals as an enemy, prey, a symbiont, an inanimate part of the environment or as a member of the same species.

    “Hosey [25,30] developed this model based on Hediger’s [33] early suggestion that humans could potentially be significant to animals in one of five ways; as an enemy, prey, a symbiont, an inanimate part of the environment or as a member of the same species.”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [25]

    Section 4.1 (page not specified) discusses Hediger’s suggestion that keepers might be perceived as conspecifics and visitors as enemies, and uses that distinction to frame human–animal relationships. But it does not give the claimed five-way list. Section 4.7 instead describes the model as incorporating the human–animal relationship concept developed for farmed animals, with zoo visitors added as a variable. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • How an animal perceives human interactions is influenced by the nature of the interaction, previous experience with humans, temperament, motivational state, genetics and species.

    “How an animal perceives human interactions is not only influenced by the nature of the interaction but also by other variables, including previous experience with humans, temperament and motivational state, genetics and species [21,24,25].”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Introduction says that an animal’s perception of an interaction depends on its nature, past experience, species, personality and motivational state. Section 4.12 also discusses temperament, but the passages found do not identify genetics as a factor. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The model suggests that Human-Animal Relationships in zoos can be characterised as negative, neutral or positive.

    “This model suggests that HARs in zoos can be characterised in three ways: (i) a negative relationship, where the animal is highly fearful of humans and shows avoidance, (ii) a neutral relationship, if interactions with humans have no consequences for the animal and can lead to habituation to humans, or (iii) a positive relationship, where the animal will potentially experience positive emotions”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [25]

  • A model of the Human-Animal Relationship for the zoo setting was proposed by Hosey, refined and updated in 2013, and presented by Ward and Sherwen.

    “A model of the HAR for the zoo setting was proposed by Hosey [25], then refined and updated in 2013 [30] and presented by Ward and Sherwen [32].”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Boysen, S.T., 1992. Pongid pedagogy: the contribution of human-chimpanzee interactions in the study of ape cognition. In: Davis, H., Balfour, D. (Eds.), The Inevitable Bond: Examining scientist-animal interactions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 205-217.
  2. Brooking, Z.A., Price, D.J., 2004. The effect of human presence on the behavioural and distributional patterns of two species of captive penguins. In: Macdonald, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, BIAZA, London, pp. 170-179.
  3. Burghardt, G.M., 1992. Human-bear bonding in research on black bear behaviour. In: Davis, H., Balfour, D. (Eds.), The Inevitable Bond: Examining scientist-animal interactions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 365-382.
  4. Nicklin, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, BIAZA, London, pp. 159-164.
  5. Dewsbury, D.A., 1992. Studies of rodent-human interactions in animal psychology. In: Davis, H., Balfour, D. (Eds.), The Inevitable Bond: Examining scientist-animal interactions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 27-43.
  6. Davis, H., Balfour, D. (Eds.), The Inevitable Bond: Examining scientist-animal interactions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 6-26.
  7. Fentress, J.C., 1992. The covalent animal: on bonds and their boundaries in behavioural research. In: Davis, H., Balfour, D. (Eds.), The Inevitable Bond: Examining scientist-animal interactions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 44-71.
  8. Nicklin, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research. BIAZA, London, (abstract), p. 135.
  9. Hediger, H., 1970. Man and Animal in the Zoo. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
  10. Hemsworth, P.H., Gonyou, H.W., 1997. Human Contact. In: Appleby, M.C., Hughes, B.O. (Eds.), Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford UK, pp. 205-217.
  11. Jones, R., Wehnelt, S., 2003. Two approaches to measure the effect of visitor numbers on orang utan welfare. In: Gilbert, T.C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, London, pp. 133-138.
  12. Keane, C.W., 2005. The effects of zoo visitors on the behaviour of Western Lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) Citron-Crested (Cacatua sulphurea citrinocristata) and Moluccan Cockatoos (Cacatua moluccensis). Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
  13. Mather, J., 1992. Underestimating the octopus. In: Davis, H., Balfour, D. (Eds.), The Inevitable Bond: Examining scientist-animal interactions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 240-249.
  14. Mather, L., 1999. Response of Captive Orang Utans to Human Audiences. Unpublished M. Phil. Thesis, University of Manchester (Bolton Institute), Bolton, UK.
  15. Owen, C., 2004. Do visitors affect the Asian short-clawed otter in a captive environment? In: Macdonald, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, BIAZA, London, pp. 202-211.
  16. Pepperberg, I.M., 1992. Social interaction as a condition for learning in avian species: a synthesis of the disciplines of ethology and psychology. In: Davis, H., Balfour, D. (Eds.), The Inevitable Bond: Examining scientist-animal interactions. Cambridge University Press, pp. 178-204.
  17. Macdonald, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, BIAZA, London, pp. 160-169.
  18. Warren, I., Parry, L., Cuthill, I., Barham, P., 2002. The effects of human disturbance on captive African (Spheniscus demersus) and gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) penguins. In: Dow, S. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Zoo Research, Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, London, pp. 114-115.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hosey, G.
Affiliations
University of Greater Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Hosey, Geoff
ORCID
Hosey, Geoff
Venue
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-02
Volume
109
Issue
2-4
Pages
105-127
ISSN
0168-1591 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.013
OpenAlex
W2062787023
Cited by
197
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Applied Animal Behaviour Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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 › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
Keywords
human-animal relations, zoo animals, zoo visitors, fear of humans, species differences, zoo animal welfare

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