The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: why it's so hard to think straight about animals
Abstract
Does living with a pet really make people happier and healthier? What can we learn from biomedical research with mice? Who enjoys a better quality of life - the chicken on a dinner plate or a rooster who dies in a Saturday night cockfight? Why is it wrong to eat the family dog? Drawing on over two decades of research in the emerging field of anthrozoology, the science of human-animal relations, Hal Herzog offers surprising answers to these and other questions related to the moral conundrums we face day in and day out regarding the creatures with whom we share our world. We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat is a highly entertaining and illuminating journey through the full spectrum of human-animal relations, based on Dr. Herzog's groundbreaking research on animal rights activists, cockfighters, professional dog show handlers, veterinary students, and biomedical researchers. Blending anthropology, history, brain science, behavioural economics, evolutionary psychology, and philosophy, Herzog carefully crafts a seamless narrative enriched with real life anecdotes, scientific research, and his own sense of moral ambivalence. Alternately poignant, challenging, and laugh-out-loud funny, his enlightening and provocative book will forever change the way we look at our relationships with other creatures and, ultimately, how we see ourselves.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing 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].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing 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].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Given the array of factors involved in most human–animal relationships, it is not surprising that people relate to animals in very different ways that range from highly positive, affectionate and caring to highly negative, dysfunctional or abusive [7,43,58,59,66,67].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [7]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters
Rothgerber, H. (2014) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.04.003 · Cited by 207
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Fashion vs. Function in Cultural Evolution: The Case of Dog Breed Popularity
Ghirlanda, S., Acerbi, A., Herzog, H., & Serpell, J. A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074770 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2011-04-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 08
- Pages
- 48-4485-48-4485
- ISSN
- 0009-4978
- 1523-8253
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: why it's so hard to think straight about animals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.48-4485
- The paper
- Some we love, some we hate, some we eat: why it's so hard to think straight about animals. (2011). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-4485