The DOI matches its Crossref record; 294 of the 294 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 22 of the 296 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding
Open accessAbstract
The human–animal relationship is ancient, complex and multifaceted. It may have either positive effects on humans and animals or poor or even negative and detrimental effects on animals or both humans and animals. A large body of literature has investigated the beneficial effects of this relationship in which both human and animals appear to gain physical and psychological benefits from living together in a reciprocated interaction. However, analyzing the literature with a different perspective it clearly emerges that not rarely are human–animal relationships characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals and, in some cases, also for people. The negative physical and psychological consequences on animals’ well-being may be very nuanced and concealed, but there are situations in which the negative consequences are clear and striking, as in the case of animal violence, abuse or neglect. Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are human psychological mechanisms that are considered relevant for positive and healthy relationships with animals, but when dysfunctional or pathological determine physical or psychological suffering, or both, in animals as occurs in animal hoarding. The current work reviews some of the literature on the multifaceted nature of the human–animal relationship; describes the key role of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in human–animal relationships; seeks to depict how these psychological processes are distorted and dysfunctional in animal hoarding, with highly detrimental effects on both animal and human well-being.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper reviews human–animal relationships as complex and multifaceted, with empathy, attachment, and anthropomorphism shaping both positive bonds and dysfunctional outcomes. It focuses on animal hoarding as a pathological human–animal bond in which these psychological processes become distorted, causing severe animal and human suffering.
Key findings
- Human–animal relationships range from beneficial and caring to neglectful, abusive, or exploitative; attachment, empathy, and concern for animals do not necessarily guarantee animal welfare, and apparently affectionate practices (e.g., dressing pets, cosmetics, bed-sharing, overfeeding) can harm companion animals.
- Empathy, attachment, and anthropomorphism form a key triad: functional levels promote concern and healthy bonds, whereas dysfunctional attachment, lack or suppression of empathy, and no tendency to anthropomorphize are related to poor relationships with animals, greater acceptance of animal cruelty, and reduced concern for animal welfare. Women consistently show higher empathy and concern regarding animal suffering and are less prone to animal abuse and cruelty.
- Animal hoarding is described as “the third dimension of animal abuse,” involving substantial and protracted animal maltreatment and suffering alongside a strong but distorted attachment. Hoarders show distorted overattachment, empathy dysfunction, and high anthropomorphism; Steketee et al. found that 81% of animal hoarders, compared with 27% of owners, tended to ascribe human characteristics and intelligence to animals and view them as their “children.”
- Animal hoarding is more frequent among women, who constitute on average 70–83% of animal hoarders; hoarders are often identified in their fifties or sixties, and approximately 70% are single, divorced, or widowed. Reported cases include 120 animal hoarding cases in Germany between 2012 and 2015 involving 9,174 hoarded animals, and a maximum of 450 hoarded animals in an Italian case. Three types are described: overwhelmed caregivers, rescue hoarders, and exploiter hoarders.
Methods
- Narrative literature review; the authors state they review some of the literature on the multifaceted nature of the human–animal relationship, empathy, attachment, anthropomorphism, and animal hoarding.
- No primary data, sample, or systematic search/analysis is reported; evidence comes from cited prior studies, reviews, case reports, and comparative interview studies (e.g., Steketee et al.; Ramos et al.).
- Main analysis is a conceptual and theoretical synthesis linking psychological mechanisms to positive and dysfunctional human–animal relationships and proposing how they are distorted in animal hoarding.
Limitations
- The paper states future studies are needed comparing different types of companion animal owners with animal hoarders while controlling for variables such as age, gender, and the types of animals involved; it also calls for more research on anthropomorphism in hoarding and on whether “exploiter” hoarders overlap with psychopathology such as antisocial personality disorder.
- Evident: as a narrative review, it does not report a systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, quality appraisal, or meta-analysis, so the selection and synthesis of literature may be non-exhaustive.
- Evident: many mechanistic claims (e.g., denial, dissociation, empathy reduction, and attachment dynamics in hoarders) are presented as hypotheses or interpretations of scarce and heterogeneous literature rather than tested in this paper; animal hoarding research is described as long underestimated and difficult to study.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
53 No full text of the sources · 52 Not checked yet · 19 Own interpretation · 8 Supported so far · 7 Partly supported · 3 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Supported · 1 Mixed support · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“However, there is also extensive literature showing that human–animal relationships are characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals (e.g., [11,68,69,80,81,82]).”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Ascione, F.R. (2008). Animal hoarding: A third dimension of animal abuse. International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty, Purdue University Press.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] Ascione, 2009, People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications, J. Curr. Soc. Issues source
- Supportedcites [69] Mota-Rojas, D., Mariti, C., Zdeinert, A., Riggio, G., Mora-Medina, P., del Mar Reyes, A., and Hernández-Ávalos, I. (2021). Anthropomorphism and Its Adverse Effects on the Distress and Welfare of Companion Animals. Animals, 11. source
The Abstract describes several ways human practices can harm companion animals, including physical illness and fear, anxiety, or aggression. The paper therefore serves as an example of literature documenting different forms and degrees of animal distress in human–animal relationships. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [80] Sanders, 2003, Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals, Symb. Interact. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [81] Ascione, F.R., and Arkow, P. (1999). Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention, Purdue University Press. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [82] Newberry, 2017, Pets in danger: Exploring the link between domestic violence and animal abuse, Aggress. Violent Behav. source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Regarding animal characteristics, people generally do not see all animals as equal, as their physical and behavioral traits play a role in how they are perceived, considered and treated [12,17,51].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Serpell, 2004, Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare, Anim. Welf. source
- Supportedcites [17] Borgi, 2016, Pet Face: Mechanisms Underlying Human-Animal Relationships, Front. Psychol. source
In “[Animal] beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” the review states that people’s consideration of animal species depends on animals’ physical and behavioral characteristics, which influence perception and help explain differing preferences. The “Impact and future directions” section also links animals’ physical traits to human behavior toward them. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] Knight, 2009, Science versus animal welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use, J. Curr. Soc. Issues source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Finally, there are several examples of negative effects of the human–animal relationship, which include cruel acts and violence towards animals, with various characteristics and different degrees of severity (e.g., [66,81,99,100,101]).”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [66] Arluke, A. (2006). Just a Dog: Understanding Animal Cruelty and Ourselves, Temple University Press. source
The book describes varied forms of harm to animals, including deliberate abuse and neglect. “RETHINKING CRUELTY” (page not provided) explicitly discusses differences in their characteristics and seriousness, supporting the citing sentence’s broad description. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [81] Ascione, F.R., and Arkow, P. (1999). Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention, Purdue University Press. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [99] Colombo, 2013, Animal Hoarding—Accumulo di Animali: Stile di vita, maltrattamento o psicopatologia? Una rassegna critica della letteratura, Ric. Psicol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [100] Arluke, A., Patronek, G., Lockwood, R., and Cardona, A. (2017). Animal hoarding. The Palgrave International Handbook of Animal Abuse Studies, Palgrave Macmillan. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [101] Alleyne, 2019, Adult-perpetrated animal abuse: A systematic literature review, TVA source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Various anthropomorphic practices result to be detrimental for companion animals’ well-being and health [69]”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.3. Anthropomorphism
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [69] Mota-Rojas, D., Mariti, C., Zdeinert, A., Riggio, G., Mora-Medina, P., del Mar Reyes, A., and Hernández-Ávalos, I. (2021). Anthropomorphism and Its Adverse Effects on the Distress and Welfare of Companion Animals. Animals, 11. source
The Abstract states that some anthropomorphic practices can be very detrimental to companion animals and describes effects on their physiology and welfare. The Simple Summary likewise identifies potential physical and emotional harms. The claim does not imply that all such practices are harmful. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“There is evidence of a relationship between anthropomorphism, attachment and attachment styles: people with insecure–anxious attachment styles with close others may compensate by seeking more secure or stable relationships from nonhumans agents”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.3. Anthropomorphism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [143] Epley, 2007, On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism, Psychol. Rev. source
- Supportedcites [232] Norberg, 2018, Anxious attachment and excessive acquisition: The mediating roles of anthropomorphism and distress intolerance, J. Behav. Addict. source
The Introduction says that anxiously attached individuals may seek support from non-human sources when others do not provide comfort, and that anthropomorphized objects may substitute for interpersonal attachment. The Discussion reports a relationship between anxious attachment and a stronger tendency to anthropomorphize comforting objects. The claim is appropriately hedged as a possibility. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [233] Neave, 2015, The influence of anthropomorphic tendencies on human hoarding behaviours, Personal. Individ. Differ. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [234] Neave, 2016, The role of attachment style and anthropomorphism in predicting hoarding behaviours in a non-clinical sample, Personal. Individ. Differ. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“it has been recognized as a mental disorder acknowledged in the DSM-5 as a form of hoarding disorder (i.e., animal hoarding disorder (AHD) [257]”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [257] American Psychiatric Association [APA] (2013). DSM 5: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed, American Psychiatric Association. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The supplied passages (References and 11 September 2026; no page numbers provided) discuss depression, not animal hoarding or DSM-5 classification. Searches for “animal hoarding disorder AHD DSM-5” and “hoarding disorder animals diagnostic criteria” found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Anthropomorphism has either positive or negative effects on human–animal relationships and animal well-being [69,103,104,221].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.3. Anthropomorphism
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [69] Mota-Rojas, D., Mariti, C., Zdeinert, A., Riggio, G., Mora-Medina, P., del Mar Reyes, A., and Hernández-Ávalos, I. (2021). Anthropomorphism and Its Adverse Effects on the Distress and Welfare of Companion Animals. Animals, 11. source
The Introduction says anthropomorphism may encourage animal welfare but can also jeopardize it when owners’ behavior conflicts with animals’ needs. The Simple Summary says it can reinforce the human–animal connection, while some anthropomorphic behaviors can harm animal welfare. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [103] Serpell, 2003, Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection: Beyond the” cute response”, Soc. Anim. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [104] Butterfield, 2012, Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [221] Serpell, 2019, How happy is your pet? The problem of subjectivity in the assessment of companion animal welfare, Anim. Welf. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“and attachment to pets plays an important role in normal social, emotional and cognitive development, promoting mental health, well-being and quality of life [14,21].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Julius, H., Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D., and Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2012). Attachment to Pets: An Integrative View of Human-Animal Relationships with Implications for Therapeutic Practice, Hogrefe Publishing. source
- Partly supportedcites [21] Beetz, 2012, Psychosocial and psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: The possible role of oxytocin, Front. Psychol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Effects on social interaction” (page unavailable), the review says that contact with companion animals may promote social functioning and reports an association between children’s bonds with pets and empathy and social competence. It also reports mood and quality-of-life benefits in particular settings. But it cautions that the bond–empathy association does not establish causation, and its evidence on learning does not establish that attachment to pets plays an important role in normal cognitive development. The claim states a broader, more certain developmental effect than the review supports. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“suggesting that in difficult developmental situations companion animals may function as alternative attachment figures providing intimacy and security without fear of rejection [303].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [303] Dutra, 2006, From infant attachment disorganization to adult dissociation: Relational adaptations or traumatic experiences?, Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages on fearful arousal and in Clinical implications discuss security and comfort in human caregiver–infant relationships. Searches for companion animals, pets, alternative attachment figures, and fear of rejection found no passage addressing whether animals provide intimacy or security in difficult developmental situations. (LLM, conf=0.74)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cats and dogs are the most accumulated species [278,289]”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [278] Avery, 2005, From helping to hoarding to hurting: When the acts of “good Samaritans” become felony animal cruelty, Valpso. Univ. Law Rev.
- Not checked yetcites [289] Nadal, 2020, Noah’s syndrome: Systematic review of animal hoarding disorder, HAI Bull.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 67
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Finally, most people care about pet welfare, but for various reasons, there is still less concern regarding farm animals’ (e.g., pigs, cows and chickens) welfare [49,50].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [49] Tawse, 2010, Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: A pig production case study, Biosci. Horiz. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says consumers often report high concern for farm animal welfare. In Table 6 (labelled Conclusion in our copy), the median response is 2—disagreement—for the statement that pet animals deserve better treatment than farm animals. The paper therefore does not support the claimed contrast in concern; its direct pet-versus-farm comparison points the other way. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Partly supportedcites [50] Tomasevic, I., Bahelka, I., Čítek, J., Čandek-Potokar, M., Djekić, I., Getya, A., and Font-i-Furnols, M. (2020). Attitudes and beliefs of eastern european consumers towards animal welfare. Animals, 10. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Results and Discussion §3.2 reports that Eastern European consumers were, on average, only slightly worried about the welfare of animals raised for human consumption. The paper does not establish that people care more about pets than farm animals, and its findings do not support a claim about people generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Scientific evidence from different disciplines, including psychology, sociology and animal welfare, shows that the relationship between humans and animals is complex, multifaceted, ambivalent and even paradoxical, with different consequences for animals and humans [6,7,8,9,10,11].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] Kalof, L. (2015). The human-animal bond. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies, Oxford University Press. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Herzog, H. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight about Animals, HarperCollins. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Blouin, 2012, Understanding relations between people and their pets, Sociol. Compass source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Amiot, 2015, Toward a psychology of human–animal relations, Psychol. Bull. source
- Supportedcites [10] Amiot, 2016, People and companion animals: It takes two to tango, BioScience source
The Abstract describes varied forms of human–animal relationships and says their consequences can be beneficial or detrimental for humans and animals. The sections on companion-animal well-being and broader human–animal relations describe mixed findings, conflict, and exploitation, supporting the claim's characterization of these relationships as complex. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked yetcites [11] Ascione, F.R. (2008). Animal hoarding: A third dimension of animal abuse. International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty, Purdue University Press.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The role of experience and culture in human–animal relationships is well documented in the literature: on the one hand the range of animals kept as pets around the world is exceptionally wide [42]; on the other hand, human–companion animal relationship styles vary considerably across cultures [7,16].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Serpell, 1987, Pet-keeping in non-western societies: Some popular misconceptions, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] Herzog, H. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight about Animals, HarperCollins. source
- Supportedcites [16] Herzog, 2014, Biology, culture, and the origins of pet-keeping, Anim. Cogn. source
In “The Occurrence and Forms of Pet-Keeping Varies Widely Over Human Cultures,” the paper explicitly says that styles of human–pet relationships vary among cultures. It also describes the range of animals kept as pets around the world as extraordinary. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Gender differences are well documented in the literature, with women consistently showing higher levels of empathy and concern regarding animal suffering, holding more positive attitudes towards animals and being more engaged in animal protection and less prone to animal exploitation, animal abuse and cruelty [13,29,31,32,33,34].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] Apostol, 2013, Psychological and Socio-demographic Predictors of Attitudes toward Animals, Procedia Soc. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says women tend to have more positive attitudes toward animals and are more concerned and actively involved in animal welfare. The Results report gender differences in attitudes and animal-directed empathy. Neither section establishes that women are less prone to animal exploitation, abuse, or cruelty than men. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] Herzog, 2007, Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review, Anthrozoos source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Signal, 2006, Attitudes to Animals: Demographics within a Community Sample, Soc. Anim.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [32] Signal, 2007, Attitude to animals and empathy: Comparing animal protection and general community samples, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [33] Colombo, 2016, Empathy towards animals and belief in animal-human-continuity in Italian veterinary students, Anim. Welf. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] Colombo, 2017, Empathy toward animals and people: The role of gender and length of service in a sample of Italian veterinarians, J. Vet. Behav. source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Keeping wild species under unnatural conditions for leisure or personal gratification, exploiting farm animals through intensive farming causing them high levels of distress and pain, and abandoning domestic animals mostly for trivial reasons are only a few examples of poor and dysfunctional relationships that are topics of research and debate in the human–animal relationship literature [47,83,84,”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [47] Bowen, 2015, Epidemiology of dog and cat abandonment in Spain (2008–2013), Animals sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction identifies dog and cat abandonment as a major animal-welfare problem. Results §3.2 reports reasons including unexpected litters, economic issues, moving, and the end of hunting season; the Discussion also links some relinquishments to financial hardship. The paper does not establish that animals are abandoned mostly for trivial reasons. It does not address the sentence’s examples involving wild or farm animals. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [83] Vollum, 2004, Moral disengagement and attitudes about violence toward animals, Soc. Anim. source
- Not checked yetcites [84] Brewster, M.P., and Reyes, C.L. (2013). Animal cruelty for profit. Animal Cruelty: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Understanding, Carolina Academic Press.
- Partly supportedcites [85] Grant, R.A., Montrose, V.T., and Wills, A.P. (2017). ExNOTic: Should we be keeping exotic pets?. Animals, 7. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and section 3 describe welfare risks when exotic pets are kept in conditions that do not meet their needs. The paper does not address intensive farming or establish that domestic animals are abandoned mostly for trivial reasons; its discussion of rehoming concerns exotic pets and unmet owner expectations. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The type of companionship sought by people may vary to a great degree, and companion animals may be acquired and kept mainly to fulfill different human needs and desires [8,86,87,88,89,90].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Blouin, 2012, Understanding relations between people and their pets, Sociol. Compass source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [86] Endenburg, 1994, Motives for acquiring companion animals, J. Econ. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] Hirschman, 1994, Consumers and their animal companions, J. Consum. Res. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [88] Belk, 1996, Metaphoric relationships with pets, Soc. Anim. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [89] Hill, 2008, Consumer behavior, extended-self, and sacred consumption: An alternative perspective from our animal companions, J. Bus. Res. source
- Partly supportedcites [90] Huber, 2020, How dogs perceive humans and how humans should treat their pet dogs: Linking cognition with ethics, Front. Psychol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says humans have used dogs for their own benefit, including as companions, and describes a wide range of other human purposes. The section on the human–dog relationship as a power relation likewise says companion animals exist for human purposes. The paper does not establish that the type of companionship people seek varies greatly, and its discussion focuses on dogs rather than companion animals generally. (LLM, conf=0.83)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“both dogs and cats form infant-like attachment bonds with humans, who are for them a source of protection and reassurance [24,186,188,189].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] Kaminski, J., and Marshall-Pescini, S. (2014). The immaterial cord: The dog human attachment bond. The Social Dog: Cognition and Behavior, Elsevier. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [186] Custance, 2003, Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth’s Strange Situation, Behaviour source
- Partly supportedcites [188] Horn, L., Huber, L., and Range, F. (2013). The importance of the secure base effect for domestic dogs–evidence from a manipulative problem-solving task. PLoS ONE, 8. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says the dog–owner relationship resembles an infant attachment bond, and the General Discussion reports a secure-base effect in dogs. The paper does not establish the corresponding claim about cats; its mention of cats is confined to a reference title. The cited paper therefore supports the dog portion, but not the full sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [189] Vitale, 2019, Attachment bonds between domestic cats and humans, Curr. Biol. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Insecure and disorganized attachments may favor compensatory defensive maneuvers that influence the caregiving system, have negative consequences on the individual’s well-being and mental health [206,207] and represent a risk factor for delinquency [208] and animal abuse and cruelty [106,209].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [206] Mikulincer, 2007, Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance, Psychol. Inq. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [207] Schimmenti, 2015, Linking lack of care in childhood to anxiety disorders in emerging adulthood: The role of attachment styles, Child Adolesc. Ment Health source
- Supportedcites [208] Hoeve, 2012, A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency, J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. source
Citation [208] is attached to the delinquency claim, not the claims about caregiving, mental health, or animal cruelty. The Results (Central Tendency and Variability; page unavailable) report that youth with poor attachment relationships have higher levels of delinquency, and the Discussion notes high rates of insecure and disorganized attachment among juvenile delinquents. The paper cautions that its associations do not establish causation, consistent with the citing sentence’s hedged wording. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked yetcites [106] Hawkins, 2017, Psychological risk factors for childhood nonhuman animal cruelty: A systematic review, Soc. Anim. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked yetcites [209] Ascione, F.R. (2008). Attachment and animal abuse. The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application, Purdue University Press.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Functional levels of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism may promote people’s concern for animal welfare in general and foster healthy human–animal relationships [103,104,105,106].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [103] Serpell, 2003, Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection: Beyond the” cute response”, Soc. Anim. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [104] Butterfield, 2012, Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [105] Beck, 2008, Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets, Anthrozoös source
- Could not verifycites [106] Hawkins, 2017, Psychological risk factors for childhood nonhuman animal cruelty: A systematic review, Soc. Anim. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available copy’s Abstract section lists publication details and keywords, but no passage addresses whether empathy, attachment, or anthropomorphism promotes concern for animal welfare or healthy human–animal relationships. Searches for those three terms and for animal-welfare concern returned only metadata and a listing for a related article, not a finding from this paper. (LLM, conf=0.74)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Attachment to animals is associated with empathy, attitudes and prosocial behavior towards them [13,39] and with anthropomorphism [65,212,214].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [13] Apostol, 2013, Psychological and Socio-demographic Predictors of Attitudes toward Animals, Procedia Soc. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction says that forming attachment relationships with companion animals appears to contribute to favorable attitudes toward animals. It discusses empathy, prosocial behavior, and anthropomorphism elsewhere, but does not establish that attachment to animals is associated with those three factors. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Thompson, 2008, Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescents: An investigation into associations with attachment and empathy, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [65] Epley, 2008, When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism, Soc. Cogn. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [212] Rusu, 2019, Interpersonal and Pet Attachment, Empathy toward Animals, and Anthropomorphism: An Investigation of Pet Owners in Romania, Phys. Astron. Int. J. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [214] Paul, 2014, Sociality motivation and anthropomorphic thinking about pets, Anthrozoös source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These factors appear to be linked and influence each other, affecting people’s attitudes and beliefs towards animals and the way they are considered, treated and cared for [12,13,27,60,61].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Serpell, 2004, Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare, Anim. Welf. source
- Partly supportedcites [13] Apostol, 2013, Psychological and Socio-demographic Predictors of Attitudes toward Animals, Procedia Soc. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page not provided) links companion-animal attachment with favorable attitudes, and the Discussion (page not provided) reports an association among anthropomorphic beliefs, empathy toward animals, and attitudes. The paper does not establish that these factors influence one another reciprocally or show that they change how animals are treated and cared for. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [27] Ellingsen, 2010, The relationship between empathy, perception of pain and attitudes toward pets among Norwegian dog owners, Anthrozoos source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] Hills, 1995, Empathy and belief in the mental experience of animals, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [61] Knight, 2004, Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind, Anthrozoös source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, the evidence on animal hoarding indicates that this syndrome is very complex and with great heterogeneity [100,292].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [100] Arluke, A., Patronek, G., Lockwood, R., and Cardona, A. (2017). Animal hoarding. The Palgrave International Handbook of Animal Abuse Studies, Palgrave Macmillan. source
- Not checked yetcites [292] Patronek, G.J., Loar, L., and Nathanson, J.N. (2006). Animal Hoarding: Strategies for Interdisciplinary Interventions to Help People, Animals, and Communities at Risk, Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“However, although to a different degree, even in nonpathological relationships companion animals, especially dogs, can serve as extensions of the owners’ self [88,96], helping them become something desired or giving them opportunities to do things that they could not otherwise do [96].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, hoarded animals may include a variety of animals, such as miniature ponies, deer, ferrets, pigs, various species of birds, and even spitting llamas, and multiple species may be present in any isolated hoarding case [278].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [278] Avery, 2005, From helping to hoarding to hurting: When the acts of “good Samaritans” become felony animal cruelty, Valpso. Univ. Law Rev.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This kind of controlling behavior often characterizes the caregiving style of animal hoarders, together with other forms of control typical of animal hoarders including refusal to adopt, rejection of help and expert opinions regarding proper animal care and sometimes the saving of dead bodies [294].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [294] Patronek, 2009, A theoretical perspective to inform assessment and treatment strategies for animal hoarders, Clin. Psychol. Rev. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Animal hoarders are reported to have difficulties in establishing affective bonds with others, tend to maintain social isolation [235,270]”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
- Not checked yetcites [270] Costa, 2020, Personality and psychopathological aspects in animal hoarding measured through HTP, Contextos Clínicos
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The central role of animals in fostering and maintaining an individual’s self-esteem and sense of identity has also been documented in studies on normal human–animal relationships and are one of the psychologically positive effects of the human–animal bond [71,301,302].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [71] McConnell, 2011, Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership, J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [301] Hyde, 1983, Relationships between pet ownership and self-esteem, social sensitivity, and interpersonal trust, Psychol. Rep. source
- Not checked yetcites [302] Purewal, R., Christley, R., Kordas, K., Joinson, C., Meints, K., Gee, N., and Westgarth, C. (2017). Companion animals and child/adolescent development: A systematic review of the evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 14. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Steketee et al. [235] interviewed individuals who fit the criteria for animal hoarding and individuals owning many animals but not meeting the hoarding criteria, reporting that both hoarders and non-hoarders had stressful life events in childhood and adulthood, strong feelings about animals such as the desire to rescue, take care of and be close to them.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Animal hoarders, however, had more dysfunctional interpersonal relationships and mental health concerns and anthropomorphized animals more often;”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They found that people who owned many cats were more similar to clinical animal hoarders in age and pet attachment levels than the typical cat owners, but they differed in functioning, veterinary care and home organization.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [102] Ramos, 2013, Early stage animal hoarders: Are these owners of large numbers of adequately cared for cats?, HAIB source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, in [309] it was reported that in a sample of college students, dissociation was positively associated with attachment to companion animals, and this result was then replicated in another student sample [310].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [309] Brown, 1997, The contribution of attachment to pets and attachment to nature to dissociation and absorption, Dissociation
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [310] Brown, 2001, Pet attachment and dissociation, Soc. Anim. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“There are owners forming functional, healthy relationships with one or relatively few animals—where the needs of both owner and animals are met—and owners forming dysfunctional relationships with their pet, where the needs of the pet are disregarded and only the owner’s convenience and needs are pursued [8].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Blouin, 2012, Understanding relations between people and their pets, Sociol. Compass source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Humans tend to prefer animals that are phylogenetically close to them and perceived as physically, behaviorally or cognitively similar; these aspects trigger more positive affect and attachment and caregiving behaviors, as well as greater empathy and a higher concern in terms of welfare and conservation [52,53,54,55,56,57].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [52] Plous, 1993, Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals, J. Curr. Soc. Issues source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [53] Stokes, 2006, Things we like: Human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation, Hum. Ecol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [54] Knight, 2008, “Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection, J. Environ. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] Batt, 2009, Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: A multivariate approach, Biosci. Horiz. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [56] Archer, 2011, Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats, Ethology source
- Not checked yetcites [57] Miralles, 2019, Empathy and compassion toward other species decrease with evolutionary divergence time, Sci. Rep. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As occurs in interpersonal relationships, human beings not only and not always care about the well-being of animals but also pursue their own personal needs, desires and goals; human’s psychological characteristics, self-interest and specific contingent needs and goals may, deliberately or not, prevail in jeopardizing the relationship and the animal’s well-being, leading to dysfunctional or even”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, attachment, empathy and concern for animals do not necessarily guarantee their welfare, and people may disagree on the proper way to treat animals or on what constitutes a fair human–animal relationship [8].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] Blouin, 2012, Understanding relations between people and their pets, Sociol. Compass source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to [12], two main aspects underlie human attitudes toward animals: “affect”, which can be defined as people’s affective and emotional responses to animals, and “utility”, i.e., people’s perceptions of animals’ instrumental value.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Serpell, 2004, Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare, Anim. Welf. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, in many Western countries, cats and dogs are the most popular and beloved companion animals, but, at the same time, a huge number of them (and other pets) are abandoned, neglected, abused and needlessly euthanized every year [46,47,48].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] Bartlett, 2005, Rates of euthanasia and adoption for dogs and cats in Michigan animal shelters, J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. source
- Not checked yetcites [47] Bowen, 2015, Epidemiology of dog and cat abandonment in Spain (2008–2013), Animals source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [48] Blazina, C., and Shen-Miller, D. (2011). Broken bonds: Understanding the experience of pet relinquishment. The Psychology of the Human-Animal Bond, Springer. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A large body of scientific literature has considered the physical and psychological benefits that both humans and animals may obtain by living together in a reciprocated interaction (e.g., humans: 21, [70,71,72,73,74]; see [75,76] for critical analyses; animals: [77,78,79]).”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [70] Manning, A., and Serpell, J.A. (1994). Pets and the development of positive attitudes to animals. Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives, Routledge.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [71] McConnell, 2011, Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership, J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [72] McCardle, P.E., McCune, S.E., Griffin, J.A., and Maholmes, V.E. (2011). How Animals Affect Us: Examining the Influences of Human–Animal Interaction on Child Development and Human Health, American Psychological Association. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [73] Wells, 2007, Domestic dogs and human health: An overview, Br. J. Health Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [74] Wells, 2019, The state of research on human–animal relations: Implications for human health, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [75] Herzog, 2011, The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis?, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [76] Islam, 2013, Cat and dog companionship and well-being: A systematic review, Int. J. Appl. Psychol.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [77] Archer, 1997, Why do people love their pets?, Evol. Hum. Behav. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [78] Mellor, 2015, Enhancing animal welfare by creating opportunities for positive affective engagement, N. Z. Vet. J. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] Horowitz, 2016, Examining dog–human play: The characteristics, affect, and vocalizations of a unique interspecific interaction, Anim. Cogn. source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In Western countries, for example, dogs and cats are mainly kept for companionship, and the idea of eating them is considered intolerable and morally unacceptable; however, in other countries (e.g., China and Vietnam), these species are both kept as pets and consumed [43,44,45].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] Podberscek, 2009, Good to pet and eat: The keeping and consuming of dogs and cats in South Korea, J. Curr. Soc. Issues source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] Podberscek, A.L. (2016). An Appetite for Dogs: Consuming and Loving Them in Vietnam. Companion Animals in Everyday Life, Palgrave Macmillan. source
- Not checked yetcites [45] Bartlett, 2003, How many dogs and cats are eaten in Asia, Anim. People
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Knight et al. [51] suggested that the variability in people’s attitudes to the use and exploitation of animals depends on a combination of different factors including beliefs about the mental capacities of animals, perceived superiority of humans, availability of alternatives to the use of animals for various purposes (e.g., medical research and food) and whether the problem of animal exploitation”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] Knight, 2009, Science versus animal welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use, J. Curr. Soc. Issues source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The propensity to use animals is greater when people believe there is no alternative, when their knowledge of how animals are used is poor, when the affinity with animals is low and when the perceived benefits of using animals outweigh the costs [51].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [51] Knight, 2009, Science versus animal welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use, J. Curr. Soc. Issues source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The human–animal relationship is ancient, complex and multifaceted. It may have either positive effects on humans and animals or poor or even negative and detrimental effects on animals or both humans and animals.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Basic mechanisms that enable human intraspecific close relationships and bonds appear to also be involved in our relationships and bonds with animals, and various nonhuman species may form intense and durable bonds with people (e.g., [24,25]).”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] Kaminski, J., and Marshall-Pescini, S. (2014). The immaterial cord: The dog human attachment bond. The Social Dog: Cognition and Behavior, Elsevier. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Rockett, 2014, Animals and attachment theory, Soc. Anim. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Personality has been associated with positive attitudes to animals, and there is a relationship between psychopathic personality traits and animal abuse and violence [26,35,36].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] Furnham, 2003, Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked yetcites [35] Mathews, 1997, Personality and attitudes towards the treatment of animals, Soc. Anim.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [36] Erlanger, 2012, The relationship between empathy and personality in undergraduate students’ attitudes toward nonhuman animals, Soc. Anim. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Empathy and attachment are both related to the quality of human–animal relationships and problems in empathy, attachment and emotion regulation are associated with animal abuse and cruelty [37,38,39,40].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [37] Gullone, E. (2012). The Development of Antisocial Behaviour. Animal Cruelty, Antisocial Behaviour, and Aggression, Palgrave Macmillan. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] Gullone, 2014, Risk factors for the development of animal cruelty, J. Anim. Ethics source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] Thompson, 2008, Prosocial and antisocial behaviors in adolescents: An investigation into associations with attachment and empathy, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] Hartman, 2019, Exploring empathy and callous–unemotional traits as predictors of animal abuse perpetrated by children exposed to intimate partner violence, J. Interpers. Violence source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For more than 40 years, studies have shown that the human–animal relationship, especially that with domestic and companion animals, is the result of a complex interactions between biological, psychological, social and cultural factors [12,13,14,15,16,17].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Serpell, 2004, Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare, Anim. Welf. source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Apostol, 2013, Psychological and Socio-demographic Predictors of Attitudes toward Animals, Procedia Soc. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Julius, H., Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D., and Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2012). Attachment to Pets: An Integrative View of Human-Animal Relationships with Implications for Therapeutic Practice, Hogrefe Publishing. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] Beck, 2014, The biology of the human–animal bond, Anim. Front. source
- Not checked yetcites [16] Herzog, 2014, Biology, culture, and the origins of pet-keeping, Anim. Cogn. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked yetcites [17] Borgi, 2016, Pet Face: Mechanisms Underlying Human-Animal Relationships, Front. Psychol. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Serpell [12] suggests that the relative strength of these factors would depend on individual characteristics, experience, cultural factors and also on the specific attributes of animals.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Serpell, 2004, Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare, Anim. Welf. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are human psychological mechanisms that are considered relevant for positive and healthy relationships with animals, but when dysfunctional or pathological determine physical or psychological suffering, or both, in animals as occurs in animal hoarding.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Attitudes, broadly defined as psychological tendencies to evaluate a particular entity (e.g., humans or animals) with some degree of favor or disfavor [41], are important in shaping the human–animal relationship and bond and are reported to play a key role in determining animals’ health and welfare.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] Eagly, A.H., and Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As Ascione and Shapiro [68] pointed out, for every study showing that the human–animal relationship can be beneficial and built on love and caring, another deals with animal exploitation or abuse including the abandonment and neglect of companion animals or cases of dog fighting or animal hoarding.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] Ascione, 2009, People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications, J. Curr. Soc. Issues source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As pointed out in [14], one reason why humans are both willing and capable to relate to animals is the presence of basic biological structures and mechanisms that are relevant in social contexts; these mechanisms are shared between humans and other animals and are highly conserved among vertebrates.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 2. The Multifaceted Nature of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] Julius, H., Beetz, A., Kotrschal, K., Turner, D., and Uvnäs-Moberg, K. (2012). Attachment to Pets: An Integrative View of Human-Animal Relationships with Implications for Therapeutic Practice, Hogrefe Publishing. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In general, animal hoarders show a highly dysfunctional relationship with animals, characterized by distorted overattachment to them, empathy disfunction and a high level of anthropomorphism [99,235,289].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [99] Colombo, 2013, Animal Hoarding—Accumulo di Animali: Stile di vita, maltrattamento o psicopatologia? Una rassegna critica della letteratura, Ric. Psicol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
- Not checked yetcites [289] Nadal, 2020, Noah’s syndrome: Systematic review of animal hoarding disorder, HAI Bull.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Keeping pets as an extension of the self implies that they are seen as expressions of the individual’s identity and as part of the person, and thus remaining without them is not conceivable; seeing animals as part of the self involves having an emotional attachment towards them and not just a functional one [97,98].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“the tendency to anthropomorphize animals is neither invariant nor stable: children are more prone to anthropomorphize than adults, some people anthropomorphize more than other people, some situations promote anthropomorphic beliefs more than others, and anthropomorphic descriptions of animals are more common in some cultures than others [65,143].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.3. Anthropomorphism
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some species, either unusual, rare or expensive, are kept as status symbols [87,91,92]; some breeds may serve as status objects and are appreciated just for their pedigree or appearance [93].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] Hirschman, 1994, Consumers and their animal companions, J. Consum. Res. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [91] Beverland, 2008, Exploring the dark side of pet ownership: Status-and control-based pet consumption, J. Bus. Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [92] Seaboch, M.S., and Cahoon, S.N. (2021). Pet primates for sale in the United States. PLoS ONE, 16. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked yetcites [93] Packer, R.M., O’Neill, D.G., Fletcher, F., and Farnworth, M.J. (2019). Great expectations, inconvenient truths, and the paradoxes of the dog-owner relationship for owners of brachycephalic dogs. PLoS ONE, 14. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Self-esteem would derive partly from the sense of self-efficacy—through the control over the animals (especially in the exploiter) and in part by seeing recognized their ability as caregivers through the affection received by the animals, [294,300].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [294] Patronek, 2009, A theoretical perspective to inform assessment and treatment strategies for animal hoarders, Clin. Psychol. Rev. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [300] Arluke, 2005, Normalizing passive cruelty: The excuses and justifications of animal hoarders, Anthrozoös source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“anthropomorphism may also lead people to an anthropocentric and inaccurate understanding of animal’s mental abilities and to ascribe them cognitive and emotional capacities, intentions and needs they do not have, causing misunderstandings, unrealistic expectancies or disregard for their real needs and characteristics [69,224].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.3. Anthropomorphism
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] Mota-Rojas, D., Mariti, C., Zdeinert, A., Riggio, G., Mora-Medina, P., del Mar Reyes, A., and Hernández-Ávalos, I. (2021). Anthropomorphism and Its Adverse Effects on the Distress and Welfare of Companion Animals. Animals, 11. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [224] Morris, 2008, Secondary emotions in non-primate species? Behavioural reports and subjective claims by animal owners, Cogn. Emot. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Animal hoarding appears to entail distortions and dysfunctions in attachment, empathy and anthropomorphism and shows how characteristics and motivations that, in general, foster and maintain long-lasting positive relationships with animals may jeopardize the human–animal relationship, causing suffering for both animals and humans [99,178,235].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [99] Colombo, 2013, Animal Hoarding—Accumulo di Animali: Stile di vita, maltrattamento o psicopatologia? Una rassegna critica della letteratura, Ric. Psicol. source
- Not checked yetcites [178] Colombo, E.S., D’Amico, P., and Prato-Previde, E. (2015). Una pericolosa Arca di Noè. L’accumulo di Animali tra Cronaca e Ricerca, Cosmopolis.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the level of anthropomorphism was positively associated with pet attachment anxiety and empathy towards animals and negatively associated with pet attachment avoidance.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [212] Rusu, 2019, Interpersonal and Pet Attachment, Empathy toward Animals, and Anthropomorphism: An Investigation of Pet Owners in Romania, Phys. Astron. Int. J. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in animal hoarding, animals are exposed to considerable physical and psychological suffering, but often there is a strong human–animal bond, with considerable impairment also of the hoarder’s welfare, who may lack insight regarding the real situation.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Ascione, F.R. (2008). Animal hoarding: A third dimension of animal abuse. International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty, Purdue University Press.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [213] Vermeulen, 1993, Proposed typology of companion animal abuse, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked yetcites [256] Beck, A.M., and Katcher, A.H. (1996). Between Pets and People: The Importance of Animal Companionship, Purdue University Press.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The nature and structure of human–animal attachment appears to be similar to interpersonal attachment, with a significant association between security and insecurity in human–animal and interpersonal human relationships [105,198].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [105] Beck, 2008, Romantic partners and four-legged friends: An extension of attachment theory to relationships with pets, Anthrozoös source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [198] Mikulincer, 2011, An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations, J. Res. Personal. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“an avoidant human–animal attachment (or pet attachment avoidance) was associated with lower emotional distress, a relative indifference towards the animal’s integrity and needs [211], negative expectancies regarding the animal, a lower level of trust in the animal and a tendency to distance oneself from the animal [198].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [211] Konok, V., Kosztolanyi, A., Rainer, W., Mutschler, B., Halsband, U., and Miklosi, A. (2015). Influence of owners’ attachment style and personality on their dogs’ (Canis familiaris) separation-related disorder. PLoS ONE, 10. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [198] Mikulincer, 2011, An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations, J. Res. Personal. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Their behavior, especially that of incipient hoarders, overwhelmed caregivers and rescue hoarders, is most often rooted in a real desire to take care of animals or save them and is characterized by a strong emotional attachment to animals and an extreme distress, often genuine despair, at the idea of being separated from them.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [99] Colombo, 2013, Animal Hoarding—Accumulo di Animali: Stile di vita, maltrattamento o psicopatologia? Una rassegna critica della letteratura, Ric. Psicol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
- Not checked yetcites [289] Nadal, 2020, Noah’s syndrome: Systematic review of animal hoarding disorder, HAI Bull.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Conversely, a dysfunctional attachment, the lack or suppression of empathy and no tendency to anthropomorphize are related to poor relationships with animals; higher acceptance of animal cruelty in children, adolescents and adults; a greater propensity to animal abuse; a reduced concern for animal welfare in general [107,108].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [107] McPhedran, 2009, A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty, Aggress. Violent Behav. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [108] Agnew, R. (2017). The causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Green Criminology, Routledge. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“attachment difficulties with primary caregivers and attachment dysfunctions in adulthood are associated with cruelty and abuse towards animals [108,209]”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [108] Agnew, R. (2017). The causes of animal abuse: A social-psychological analysis. Green Criminology, Routledge. source
- Not checked yetcites [209] Ascione, F.R. (2008). Attachment and animal abuse. The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application, Purdue University Press.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Companion animals, mainly dogs and cats, can serve as child substitutes or as toys [91,94,95].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [91] Beverland, 2008, Exploring the dark side of pet ownership: Status-and control-based pet consumption, J. Bus. Res. source
- Not checked yetcites [94] Tuan, Y.F. (1984). Dominance & Affection: The Making of Pets, Yale University Press. No. 04; BF632. 5, T8.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [95] Sanders, 1990, The animal ‘Other’: Self definition, social identity and companion animals, Adv. Consum. Res.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“whose motivations for hoarding could be linked to a need to dominate and control or to financial interest (especially in the case of anti-social personalities) or to the desire to establish relationships that confirm their value, in which other individuals (in this case animals) have the role of self-objects, serving to ensure attentions and adoration (in narcissists; [292]).”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [292] Patronek, G.J., Loar, L., and Nathanson, J.N. (2006). Animal Hoarding: Strategies for Interdisciplinary Interventions to Help People, Animals, and Communities at Risk, Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Even today anthropomorphism may have a positive role in fostering human–animal relationships and in promoting animal welfare, due to its power to affect the way in which people perceive, interact with, and respond to animals [104,220,221,222].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.3. Anthropomorphism
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [104] Butterfield, 2012, Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [220] Chan, 2012, Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool, Biodivers. Conserv. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [221] Serpell, 2019, How happy is your pet? The problem of subjectivity in the assessment of companion animal welfare, Anim. Welf. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [222] Manfredo, 2020, How anthropomorphism is changing the social context of modern wildlife conservation, Biol. Conserv. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Animal hoarders’ difficulty in relinquishing animals to people who can more adequately care for them is another key point: despite highly negative conditions they form excessive attachments to their animals, consider them like children [279] and feel the urge to save and care for them, even if this results in significant impairment.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [279] Torres, 2014, Hoarding pet animals in obsessive-compulsive disorder, Acta Neuropsychiatr.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“an anxious human–animal attachment (i.e., pet attachment anxiety) was found to be associated with greater emotional distress and poorer mental health, ambivalence, pervasive worry for the integrity of the animal, doubt regarding owner’s worth for the animal [198] and a higher tendency for pathological grief [210].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 4. Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism: A Key Triad of the Human–Animal Relationship > 4.2. Attachment
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [198] Mikulincer, 2011, An attachment perspective on human–pet relationships: Conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations, J. Res. Personal. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [210] Blazina, C., Boyraz, G., and Shen-Miller, D. (2011). Death of a companion animal: Understanding human responses to bereavement. The Psychology of the Human-Animal Bond, Springer. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Animal hoarding is a highly dysfunctional and pathological form of human–animal relationship, which has been defined by Patronek [11] as “the third dimension of animal abuse”, since it entails substantial and protracted animal maltreatment and suffering.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Ascione, F.R. (2008). Animal hoarding: A third dimension of animal abuse. International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty, Purdue University Press.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This often results in a distorted sense of responsibility and a strong need for control over the animals, whereby the hoarders feel that they must acquire animals and should not separate from them to ensure that nothing bad happens to them.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [279] Torres, 2014, Hoarding pet animals in obsessive-compulsive disorder, Acta Neuropsychiatr.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the primary source of self-esteem is the interaction within the human–animal relationship: animals are highly focused on the person and do not judge or criticize, and they cannot object to misinterpretations of their feelings and needs [294].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [294] Patronek, 2009, A theoretical perspective to inform assessment and treatment strategies for animal hoarders, Clin. Psychol. Rev. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“what defines the disorder is not just the number of animals but the inability of the owner to provide the minimum necessary care for them, to recognize their suffering and to provide them with appropriate sanitary conditions [177,235,276,277,278].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [177] Patronek, 1999, Hoarding of animals: An under-recognized public health problem in a difficult-to-study population, Public Health Rep. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [276] Ferreira, 2017, Animal hoarding disorder: A new psycho- pathology?, Psychiatry Res. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [277] Williams, 2014, Animal hoarding: Devastating, complex, and everyone’s concern, Ment. Health Pract. source
- Not checked yetcites [278] Avery, 2005, From helping to hoarding to hurting: When the acts of “good Samaritans” become felony animal cruelty, Valpso. Univ. Law Rev.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In most hoarding situations, the emotional attachment to animals, which is a basic aspect of the human–animal relationship, is distorted, formed with many individuals and immediately triggered to the point that any animal encountered can be easily seen as one’s own and the individual feels obliged to take care of it [295].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [295] Arluke, A., and Killeen, C. (2009). Inside Animal Hoarding: The Case of Barbara Erickson and Her 552 Dogs, Purdue University Press.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Tuan [94] suggested that when pets are used as toys, they are treated capriciously to gain a sense of power and control that is also expressed through training them to obey to commands.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 3. Human–Animal Relationships: Two Sides of the Story?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [94] Tuan, Y.F. (1984). Dominance & Affection: The Making of Pets, Yale University Press. No. 04; BF632. 5, T8.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and can make it difficult to understand and respond to others’ feelings as well as easier to view them as less than human [303].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [303] Dutra, 2006, From infant attachment disorganization to adult dissociation: Relational adaptations or traumatic experiences?, Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As attachment, empathy and anthropomorphism appear to be basic ingredients of the human–animal relationships,”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Anthropomorphism is a pervasive human characteristic.
- Rests on an assumption: Anthropomorphism is found at different levels in normal human–animal relationships.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and considering them as just hoarders could erroneously turn a form of criminality into a psychological disorder such as animal hoarding.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It has been argued that dissociation may be best understood as a continuum from more common, normal manifestations to less common and more pathological symptoms [308].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [308] Dell, P.F., and O’Neil, J.A. (2009). The case for the study of “normal” dissociation processes. Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond, Routledge.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are considered to play an important role in either positive or negative relationships with animals and influence each other in determining the type and quality of the relationship between humans and animals.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, as do most owners of companion animals, animal hoarders appear to have a strong emotional attachment to animals that represent a source of comfort and security and also provide a sense of social connection and self-efficacy.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, their attachment to a large number of animals and their willingness to rescue them could depend on a greater empathy towards them, associated with dysfunctions of some regulatory mechanisms, entailing similarity and familiarity, or to errors in the ability to process animals’ emotions, with stimuli-like facial expressions and vocalizations being interpreted in a systematically”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [311] Pollak, 2003, Selective attention to facial emotion in physically abused children, J. Abnorm. Psychol. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in particular further investigating to what extent the “exploiter” hoarder, who lacks empathy, attachment and concern for animals, overlaps with other forms of psychopathology such as the antisocial personality disorder.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, pet ownership is also complex, multifaceted and varies along a continuum.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“deriving comfort and well-being from their ability to provide emotional support and unconditional love and may view them as an extension of their self-concept [294].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [235] Steketee, 2011, Characteristics and antecedents of people who hoard animals: An exploratory comparative interview study, Rev. Gen. Psychol. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [294] Patronek, 2009, A theoretical perspective to inform assessment and treatment strategies for animal hoarders, Clin. Psychol. Rev. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of hoarder, who exploits animals, appears to also include individuals who derive profits from an intentional improper management of breeding farms and animal shelters,”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hoarders’ instantaneous attachment to animals and its negative effects could be related to hoarders’ higher sensitivity to the infantile features of pets.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Patronek [11] defined animal hoarding as “the third dimension of animal abuse”, underlining that it entails substantial and protracted animal maltreatment and suffering but cannot be easily labeled as deliberate animal abuse and neglect due to the presence of a strong, albeit detrimental, attachment and human–animal bond.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Ascione, F.R. (2008). Animal hoarding: A third dimension of animal abuse. International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty, Purdue University Press.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This lack of insight is typical of animal hoarders, and it has been suggested that being unaware of the degradation in their personal lives and those of their animals could be suggestive of dissociation [294].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [294] Patronek, 2009, A theoretical perspective to inform assessment and treatment strategies for animal hoarders, Clin. Psychol. Rev. source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Lack of insight is typical of animal hoarders.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An abusive, traumatic or dysfunctional childhood is correlated with a disorganized attachment style, which can result in compulsive caregiving.”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193] Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: 1. Attachment, Basic Books.
- Not checked yetcites [305] Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds, Tavistock.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [306] Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P.R. (2010). Forms of concern: A psychoanalytic perspective. Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature, American Psychological Association. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This caregiving style, differently from the sensitive caregiving style (i.e., the ability to be responsive and attuned with another’s individual support-seeking behavior), is characterized by the tendency to provide care obsessively and intrusively, irrespective of whether the care is wanted or needed [193,305,306].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 5. Animal Hoarding: A Pathological Human–Animal Bond > Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Animal Hoarding
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [193] Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: 1. Attachment, Basic Books.
- Not checked yetcites [305] Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds, Tavistock.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [306] Mikulincer, M., and Shaver, P.R. (2010). Forms of concern: A psychoanalytic perspective. Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature, American Psychological Association. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“It has been proposed that viewing animals as extensions of themselves, rather than separate beings, would make hoarders unable to empathize with them or to understand that they have needs of their own [294,304].”
§ The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding > 6. Conclusions and Afterthoughts
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [294] Patronek, 2009, A theoretical perspective to inform assessment and treatment strategies for animal hoarders, Clin. Psychol. Rev. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [304] Brown, 2011, Theoretical concepts from self psychology applied to animal hoarding, Soc. Anim. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Animal hoarders declare to love animals and want to care for them but their animals are terribly neglected and suffering.
“Probably, one of the most perplexing aspects of animal hoarding is that animal hoarders declare to love animals and want to care for them but, in fact, their animals are terribly neglected and suffering.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Lack of insight is typical of animal hoarders.
“This lack of insight is typical of animal hoarders,”
The paper relies on this without support.
Anthropomorphism is a pervasive human characteristic.
“Anthropomorphism is a pervasive human characteristic.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Anthropomorphism is found at different levels in normal human–animal relationships.
“It is found at different levels in normal human–animal relationships”
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
American Psychiatric Association (2013) · doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 · Cited by 116,369
(1969) · Cited by 18,340
Possessions and the Extended Self
Belk, R. W. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209154 · Cited by 9,064 · cited 2×
“However, although to a different degree, even in nonpathological relationships companion animals, especially dogs, can serve as extensions of the owners’ self [88,96], helping them become something desired or giving them opportunities to do things that they could not otherwise do [96].”
BackgroundThe case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 · Cited by 7,272
Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.2.226 · Cited by 6,009
Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x02000018 · Cited by 4,126
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00 · Cited by 4,093
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069
The functional architecture of human empathy
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004) · Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews · doi:10.1177/1534582304267187 · Cited by 3,407
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Ascione, F.R. (2008). Animal hoarding: A third dimension of animal abuse. International Handbook of Theory and Research on Animal Abuse and Cruelty, Purdue University Press.
- Bartlett, 2003, How many dogs and cats are eaten in Asia, Anim. People, 12, 18
- Blazina, C., and Shen-Miller, D. (2011). Broken bonds: Understanding the experience of pet relinquishment. The Psychology of the Human-Animal Bond, Springer. · DOI · Paper page
- Arluke, A., Sanders, C., and Sanders, C.R. (1996). Regarding Animals, Temple University Press.
- Brewster, M.P., and Reyes, C.L. (2013). Animal cruelty for profit. Animal Cruelty: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Understanding, Carolina Academic Press.
- Tuan, Y.F. (1984). Dominance & Affection: The Making of Pets, Yale University Press. No. 04; BF632. 5, T8.
- Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, Sadness and Depression, Basic Books.
- Ascione, F.R. (2008). Attachment and animal abuse. The International Handbook of Animal Abuse and Cruelty: Theory, Research, and Application, Purdue University Press.
- Beck, A.M., and Katcher, A.H. (1996). Between Pets and People: The Importance of Animal Companionship, Purdue University Press.
- Jenike, M.A., Baer, L., and Minichiello, W.E. (1998). Hoarding: Clinical aspects and treatment strategies. Obsessive-Compulsive Disorders: Practical Management, Mosby. [3rd ed.].
- Costa, 2020, Personality and psychopathological aspects in animal hoarding measured through HTP, Contextos Clínicos, 13, 3
- Arluke, A., and Killeen, C. (2009). Inside Animal Hoarding: The Case of Barbara Erickson and Her 552 Dogs, Purdue University Press.
- Dell, P.F., and O’Neil, J.A. (2009). The case for the study of “normal” dissociation processes. Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond, Routledge.
- Brown, 1997, The contribution of attachment to pets and attachment to nature to dissociation and absorption, Dissociation, 10, 125
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Agarwal, R., Mehrotra, A., Pant, M., Alzeiby, E. A., & Vishnoi, S. K. (2024) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103729 · Cited by 54
Neugnot-Cerioli, M., & Laurenty, O. M. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.19275 · Cited by 54
Kasturiratna, K. T. A. S., & Hartanto, A. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100912 · Cited by 45
Charismatic species should be large: The role of admiration and fear
Prokop, P., Zvaríková, M., Zvarík, M., Ježová, Z., & Fedor, P. (2023) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10504 · Cited by 33
Fantechi, T., Califano, G., Caracciolo, F., & Contini, C. (2023) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113879 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S.
- Affiliations
- Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy
- Associazione Asino Anch’io, 20080 Basiglio, Italy
- Petlife, 20151 Milan, Italy
- Venue
- Animals
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2022-10-19
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 2835
- ISSN
- 2076-2615 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9597799
- OpenAlex
- W4306836252
- Semantic Scholar
- 198031df51410ae870b9e02a4d0d22a77aea4e40
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 293
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 2.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Animals (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
- Keywords
- human-animal relations, animal hoarding, empathy, attachment, anthropomorphism, animal welfare, animal cruelty, animal neglect, animal violence, human-animal interaction, psychological suffering
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
