Pets and their Humans: Do pet personalities shape human-pet relationships?

Transcription

1 Today a great number of people are sharing their home environments with other nonhuman species (it was estimated that in 2008 there were more than 70 million pets in USA alone). Pet keeping is considered as one of the rather unique types of humananimal interactions in today's modern western society. Through this close-lived nature of pet and human relationship, human pet keepers appear to be able not only to understand these animals but also to recognise their individuality and personalities and at the same time to respect their species uniqueness and differences (Fox, 2006). Although pet keeping is more prominent in our modern society is not really a new trend as evidence seems to places the domestication of dogs at least years ago and cats around 9000 years ago with some evidence suggesting that perhaps the earliest domestication of dogs took place in the Near East during the pre-agricultural Mesolithic period following the last Ice Age (Gunter, 1999, Serpell, 2003). The domestication of the cat though appears to have started around 9000 years ago and it is more than likely that it was connected to pest control as cats appeared to be represented in drawings of the Egyptians dating back to 3000 BC. (Gunter, 1999). Others though like Serpell (2003, ) believe that pet keeping has an even older origin, appearing almost years ago, when the first modern humans obtained the capacity for reflexive consciousness, the ability to make inferences about other animals and the natural world around them (this new ability appeared to have helped early humans to survive by making them able to understand and explain animal behaviour and as result becoming better hunters as it allowed them to engage in more complex hunting strategies) (Humphrey, 1986, Mithen, 1996, Serpell, 2003). At the same time this new found capability it had also its disadvantages as it also restricted them into thinking about animals and other non human forms in anthropomorphic only term by focusing mainly on the similarities that non-human animals have with humans, and at the same being incapable of seeing, recognising and appreciating of what is unique, different and even peculiar in animals (Tyler, 2003, Serpell, 2003). Anthropomorphic thinking (the ability to perceive human characteristics in either real or imagined nonhuman agents, appeared not only to enable our ancestors to attribute humans thoughts and feelings to other non-human animals but also at the same time it opened the door and welcomed some other non-human species into the human social world either as domesticated animals or pets. (Serpell, 2003). At the same time anthropomorphic thinking appears to be the only exclusive method that humans can use 1

2 for describing, explaining and predicting animal behaviour in all environments (zoos, in the wild, at home, etc) (Horrowitz, Bekoff, 2007). The origins of anthropomorphic thinking are far from clear though with some researchers believing that anthropomorphism emerged as the result of a cognitive default from human social cognition (Shilhab, 2002), with others believing that anthropomorphism is the result of cultural norms and some even see it as a natural trait for humans which it is believed that is '...built into us' and it has '...been pre-programmed into our hereditary make up by natural selection' (Kennedy, 1992). It is also seen by some as an automatic and unconscious behaviour (Chartrand et al 2008) which is important as it can increase what humans perceive as social support by drawing on human-like characteristics seen in their pets. Other behaviours which have been described as anthropomorphic include viewing the pet as a family member or best friend (Albert and Bulcroft 1988; Greenebaum 2004), giving to the pet a human role such as 'fur baby' (Greenebaum 2004), dressing it in human clothing (Archer 1997), and also by the pet carer him/herself also taking the role of a parent (father or mother) (Greenebaum 2004). Pet anthropomorphism today appears to be a human trait that is more prominent in human-pet relationships (Gardyn (2002) with a constant increase in the percentage of pet carers who described themselves as being the father or mother of their pets (Dotson, et al, 2008). Pet carers can treat their pets also as humans by, for example, celebrating their birthdays, giving them Christmas presents, buying them toys and clothes and even in some cases sending them to gyms, going to a cafe or pub with them, and even travelling with them (Greenebaum 2004; Paquet 2005; Righton 2006). This increase in pet anthropomorphism in western societies such as North America (Gardyn, 2002; Paquet 2005) for some it is an indication of perhaps of some humans' need to relate with pets more as they will have related with other humans than as another species of animal. A number of researchers have also reported that the benefits of pet ownership were stronger when the relationship was a direct result of anthropomorphic behaviour and were associated with humansocial support when the pet carers perceive themselves as part of a human-human relationship, rather than a human-pet relationship (Hessling and Russell 2003; Hansson, Hilleras and Forsell 2005). Such evidence indicates that perhaps there is indeed an increase in anthropomorphism and that perhaps this tendency might also suggest some other deeper psychological need in humans to relate with pets more as humans than as another species (and raises the possibility that individuals who engage in anthropomorphic behaviour may possibly benefit in some way from doing this) 2

3 (Greenbaum, 2004, Cavanaugh, et al, 2007). This pet anthropomorphism may be a result of a lack of social support, or at the very least, individuals are using anthropomorphism of their pets to increase their perceived social support by indirectly drawing on human-like characteristics ascribed to their pets to supplement that lack of support. Despite our natural tendency to anthropomorphise though only a few non-human species seem to have managed to share our homes and even gain equal family status; mainly cats and dogs, and those species are often being described as being anthropomorphic by nature (having human features and similarities) (Chartrand 2008). Our pets today, play a prominent role in human family and social life and the numbers of pets have dramatically increased the last few years. But why people keep pets in their homes and engage in such anthropomorphic relationships with them? Many theories over the years have tried to explain these human-nonhuman relationships. For some these relationships are appearing to have obvious beneficial results (for the humans at least). There have being a number of benefits associated with pet ownership including physical health, psychological benefits and stress reduction for the general population (Serpell 1991; Headey 1999; Allen, Blascovich and Mendes 2002), as well as for some sub-populations, such as the elderly (Rogers, Hart and Boltz 1993). Other researchers found that pets can be helpful in protecting the psychological well-being of their owners by, for example, providing emotional support (Albert and Bulcroft 1988). Another explanation which has being associated with pet ownership is provided by the social support theory which suggests that pet keeping offers high levels of social support and this support may act as a 'buffer' against stress and consequently protect individuals from harm to their well-being (Cohen and Hoberman 1983; Gore 1985). Along with the physical and psychological benefits that pet keeping seems to offer other reasons have being also investigated. Some other theories are suggesting that this closeness to pets might be simply the result of cats and dogs just being after all nothing more than 'social parasites' who have simply perfected the art of releasing and exploiting our innate parental instincts, the 'cute response' parallel to the brood parasitism phenomenon in birds (Serpell (2003). These neonatal features that pets seem to have such as large eyes & ears, rounded head and high forehead (which make them look often like baby humans) along with the soft fur seem to also produce when holding and petting them feelings of comfort and wellbeing (Belk, 1996) For others pets appearing to have a specific function. Pets can be seen as symbolic 3

4 extensions of humans, or they can even facilitate human interactions and in some occasions might substitute or supplement interactions with other people and even in some cases replace them. (Veevers, 1985). Pets can even be used as alternative toys in order for their human carers to gain a sense of power or control over them (by obeying humans commands they are offering a feeling of control and mastery) (Basalla, 1982, Campbell, 1988). Others believe that changes in human needs have helped to shape the type of relationships that humans have today with their pets. Changes in technology, economy and cultural norms affect the human needs and also shape the nature of human-pet relationships (Serpell, 2003). Also the recent rise of singles and childless couples seem to influence the type of relationships that people share with their pets since pets are often used as substitutes for children and grandchildren. (Klein, 2004). Belk (1996) believes that humans keep pets because like human children they are making in general life interesting by offering pleasure (pets, unlike children, are allowed to show mischief and create mayhem) and also because small animals like cats give us the opportunity to see our small and cute pet and in some unconscious perhaps level as our own potential alter ego succeeding in getting his own way in a world of larger animals (human adults). Other theories have also suggested that perhaps human carers have close relationships with non human species because of their own personality or character. They are simply incapable to relate to other people and to form normal relationships with others and therefore they use pets as alternatives (Belk, 1996, Cameron & Matson, 1972). Although there are many theories that try to explain the roles that pets are playing today in the human society very few have investigated whether companion animals (today the word pet is not a politically correct term anymore as it seems to imply the hierarchy of ownership, the same way in which human slaves were once bought and sold) might actually be equally active partners in these relationships. Pets might also contribute and influence perhaps with their own behaviour or even personality the formation of such successful anthropomorphic relationships (Greenbaum, 2004). Pet carers that live in close proximity with animals on a day to day basis see their pets as unique individuals and they will attribute them with human-like characteristics and traits such as emotions (Cavanaugh, et al, 2007). They will also often interpret their everyday behaviours in terms of how they think they see the world and they will treat them as equal family members or even as children (Fox, 2006). But before pets are allowed to become equal members of the modern human families and 4

5 also incorporated in family rituals (e.g Christmas and birthday celebrations) first they need to become 'humans' which means having meaningful names, being talked to by their cares by often using what is known as baby talk, which also shows that the humans often see pets as infants than human adults, by being trained, cared for and even for the humans to feel pride or guilt for their pets' own behaviour (Belk, 1996). Pet owners will attribute personhood to their pets through recognition of cognitive processes, the possession of individual personalities with likes and dislikes and also by seeing the animal as capable in engaging in social relationships (Fox, 2006). Although recent research has suggested that perhaps this human tendency to anthropomorphise pets and to place a 'higher hierarchy' might actually apply only to certain animals like cats, dogs and primates while at the same time treating other species as mere food resources and 'things' for human exploitation. This type of behaviour is perhaps even today nothing more than the remnants of 'neo-cartesianism', a still preserving belief that humans are superior to all other species and they are simply extending the privileged category of humans instead of just trying to recognise the value of all animals for being different instead of similar to humans (Fox, 2006). Although most pet carers believe strongly that their pets are as unique as themselves with their own personalities there is still a lot of scepticism on whether non-humans animals have actually personalities or just the result of anthropomorphic thinking that makes pet owners see human traits in their pets when they don't really exist (Mehta and Gosling, 2008).Personality has been extensively studied in humans as a factor that can explain human behaviour. Although there is no one specific definition of personality that could satisfy everyone there is one broad, general definition which appears to be accepted in general. Personality is being defined as the individual's key traits and behavioural characteristics that endure over time (Wiggins, 1996) and several theories exist which attempt to organize and explain the differences in thoughts, feelings, and actions with the trait theory most widely known and accepted. (Ley et al 2008). Many personality researchers study how individual differences, which are believed to be the result of personality traits can contribute in different behaviours and life outcomes. Quite often the term temperament is used in relation to personality by some researches to describe inherited, early appearing tendencies that continue throughout life and serve as the foundation for personality (Buss, 1995; Goldsmith et al., 1987). Although these definitions do not always apply when it comes to describing animal behaviours in some cases, the word temperament is conveniently used instead of personality' by some 5

6 researchers to avoid being accused of anthropomorphism. Despite the fact that scientists up till now have been rather sceptical to attribute personality traits (even emotions or capability for thinking for that matter) to animals even if they seem to agree that the anatomy and physiology of humans and animals is similar, a number of recent studies on different non-human species has shown that animals have distinct personalities as well (Gosling and John, 1999; Cavanaugh, 2007, Dotseon, et al 2008, Mehta, et al, 2008, ). As there is nothing in the theory of evolution to suggest that humans are different from animals and even Darwin (1872/1998) argues that emotions exist in both human and non-human animals therefore there is no real reason to believe that personalities are unique human characteristic only. Some scientists seem to also believe that personality traits such as Neuroticism, Extraversion and Agreeableness can also be found in nonhuman species ( Hogan, 1996, Gosling & John, 1999). Today more and more animal researchers seem to agree with the belief that pets have personalities or at least that they do possess consistent individual differences in behaviour or even that they exhibit different patterns of behaviour that in humans would be described as personality traits and that they can also be measured (Gosling & John, 1999, Cavanaugh, et al.2007, Ley and Bennett, 2007, Dotson, 2008, Mehta and Gosling, 2008). Most carers define their pets' personalities as a combination of a shared history and knowledge of the each other s tastes, emotions, and routine responses, and as a result pet carers come to regard their companion animals as similar persons and treat them as such. (Sanders, 2001). It has also being suggested that pet's personality also influences an individual s behaviour and responses to the environment. For measuring human personality the Big Five is the most commonly accepted and used method by psychologists, a method which looks at persons differences on the five facets of personality: neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, openness to experience and conscientiousness (FFM, John and Srivastana, 1999). The modified Big Five is not the only method used to measure pet personalities though as other measures have being used for measuring non-human personalities such as the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire (also known also as MCPQ) as the Canine BFI has being criticised for not being accurate since it it has only be used on specific populations of dogs and has being under the assumption that dog and humans personalities are similar without being tested for validation. (Ley, et al, 2008, 2009). 6

7 Some of these studies of personality have also tried to investigate whether there is an connection between personality and relation satisfaction (Robins et al 2002) and whether there is some connection between personality similarities and relationship satisfaction among partners (Watson et al, 2004, Luo and Klohnen, 2005). They usually though appear to be looking at too many variables (such as attitudes, emotionality, and personality traits) and not taking into consideration that perhaps relationship satisfaction is related to similarity on some variables, but not on others. Very little research has being done so far on pet and human personalities correlation and whether it is possible to predict successful pet-human relationships and whether the similarities in both personalities play an important role in the formation of a successful anthropomorphic relationship. As significantly large number of the human population today cares for non-human animals and despite the fact that many theories have tried to explain the reasons behind this human 'need' to keep and care for other non-human animals very few have focused on the active role that pets play today on the relationships that humans have with those pets. So the aim of this study was to investigate whether pet personalities can shape the anthropomorphic relationships that humans have with their pets today and whether there are similarities between human and pet personalities that perhaps can explain these relationships. It attempted to investigated whether desirable human personality traits such as intelligence, sociability, easy going, friendliness, reliability,etc which are found in pets are responsible for the formation of satisfactory human-pet relationships and whether such similar traits are also prominent in the human pet carers. For most pet carers their animal companions are affectionate, loving by nature, with a unique personality and appearance and loyal, intelligent, friendly and even trainable (Downey, 2008). Often between human carer and pet (e.g cat) exists an intimacy which it can be enhanced through behaviour such as touch ( cat's fur is very soft), through pet's often small size which allows humans to pick and carry the pet as they would have done with a young child, and by also the capability in this instance of the cat to jump to high above the ground places to touch humans' face and therefore to be at equal 'term' or level and treated as another human (Downey, 2008). The original chosen method for this project was a survey using already validated questionnaires to measure personalities and anthropomorphic relationships. The Big Five for human personalities and the Monash Canine Personality Canine Questionnaire which 7

8 was modelled on the Big Five but was modified accordingly were used. To measure the anthropomorphic relationships that humans have with their pets, Albert and Bulcroft's (1988) 10 item anthropomorphic scale was also used. Finally the personalities of both humans and their pets were then compared to investigate whether they were similarities in the personalities of both humans and pets that could explain satisfactory relationships. Some qualitative data was also used in the form of answers to an open question so to allow pet carers at the end of the interview to talk freely if they wish about the pet's personality and the relationships that they are sharing with them. The survey used contributions of only 52 volunteers, who were all current pet carers (caring for either cats or dogs, all over the age of 25), from online pet sites and forums (catchat.org, daily-meowing and purrsnwhiskers) as well as from local areas (pet shop, and veterinary surgery). The pet carers who volunteered to take part completed three questionnaires (general information and human personality, pet personality questionnaires and anthropomorphic relationships measuring scale) over the phone at their own chosen times. The majority of participants were either married or they were living with a partner. The majority of participants that took part (86.5%) were female with 58% being cat cares out of 67.3% of the total of cat carers. The majority of cat carers 77% (male and female) were either married or they were living with a partner and all (100%) had no children. Again the dog carers majority 77.6% (male and female) were either married or were living with partner and only 17.6% had children (dog carers). An indication perhaps in both groups that pets might be seen as children substitutes for families. Also the stereotype image of lonely, single people living with their pets didn't seem to be supported by the available data, as most dog and cat carers appear to live with partners. A total of 67% of cat carers (male and female) had a university degree or an equivalent qualification on subjects such as English Literature, Psychology, Natural Sciences, Business and Education with 20% of high educated female cat carers appeared to have a degree in psychology and to also be aware in some level of their personality similarities with their own pets. Most of the human participants scored higher on three categories of personality. The highest scores were scored in the category Openess. Interesting enough the 4 female participants with Degrees in Psychology scored the highest score in this category with a total of 19 high scores. The second personality category with the highest scores was 8

9 Agreeableness with a total of 18 high scores (above 5). Third was Conscientiousness with a total of 16 highest scores. Fourth was Extraversion with a total of 14 highest scores. The last category was Neuroticism with a total of 10 highest scores. All pets appeared to score high on Motivation with the highest score with a total of 21. The second highest score was Amicability with a a total of 20. Third category was Training Focus with a total of 19. Fourth was Extraversion with a highest total of highest scores of 14 (although there were quite a lot of zero scores too). Final category was Neuroticism with a highest score of only 4 (and again many zeros). All pets seemed to score really low on the Neuroticism and the majority of the pets (85%) were considered to be intelligent and social, 80% were considered to be friendly and non aggressive, with a 70% (especially cats) to be trainable and 50% to be considered persevering, attentive and assertive. Unfortunately most of the pets, especially cats appeared to be of no distinguished breed (they were all moggies and therefore the factor breed type was not used) so their breed seem to have no influence on the personality scoring. Both pets and humans scored high on the Openess/Motivation with 19 and 21 highest scored. The second highest scored category was again for both humans and pets Agreeableness/Amicability with 18 and 20 highest scored. Third for both humans and pets was the Conscientiousness/Training Focus with scores of 18 and 19. Extraversion/Extraversion was the fourth category with both groups scoring 14 highest scores. Finally Neuroticism/Neuroticism was the last category with both groups scoring really low with 10 for humans and 4 of the highest scores for the pets, which an interesting result as many pets (dogs and cats) tend to suffer from a lot of anxiety related behavioural problems. Further examinations of the pet and human personality scores showed that 8% of humans and pets had similar scores on 4 categories out of 5, 11.5% had similar scores on 3 categories and over 83% had similar scores on 2 categories. All participants scored high on the Anthropomorphic Scale with ranges between 43 and 49 for cat cares although the range for dog carers(small sample) was somewhat lower between 36 and 47. As almost all participants scored high on the scale and the lower scores appeared to be because of some confusion on some of the items that the scale was actually measuring, this could have being as a result of the homogenous sample that took part in the survey (most of the participants were cat carers, highly educated, married or living with partner, 9

10 having no children living in the house and of the age group and of course and most importantly because of the small number of participants that actually did take part). Pet carers often finding it easier to talk to other pet carers about their pets perhaps in same ways as parents can talk with other parents about their children. When during the interviews the participants were asked to rate their relationship with their current pet using the anthropomorphic scale in some instances they felt the need to explain a bit more about their answers and even if possible to put in into a context, to explain the pet's own behaviour and personality and to also describe the circumstances and the environment they were sharing with that pet. For that reason an open question was decided to be used to help perhaps some of the participants to express with more words than single statements the relationship they had with their pets. The question that was asked at the end of the interviews was: Is there anything else that you want to add about your pet's personality or your relationship with him/her? Some of the comments that were made were proved to be quite interesting. For example one participant said that her cat was attune to her own emotions and physical condition and that the cat will try to make her feel better when she is not feeling well(human). She also thought that her cat was very attached to her. The participant clearly shares the same view that many carers seem to have that their pets can feel what they are feeling and respond accordingly by being supporting during times of need, e.g a physical illness. This is a common belief among many cat carers that their cats are attune to their needs and emotions and that they can at the same time even 'predict' situations such as for example the time of human carer's returning home and they will wait for their humans at the door or by the window, etc. In another example the participant felt that her cat was mirroring her own personality at times, a case perhaps when humans in some way might actually influence their pets' personalities or perhaps the other way around. Another subject that was touched was that pets indeed in some cases can help the human carer's mental and physical well being. In this instance the cat carer participant who suffers from depression sees her cat as being a key factor in her therapy and help her to feel better because of the special bond that they have developed, she always looks forward to go back where the cat will be waiting for her'. Perhaps one of the reasons that pets and humans develop some good relationships is because they both (or at least the human) can physical benefit from having a pet around. 10

11 These answers seem to support theories of possible similarities between human and pet, bonding and attachment, being beneficial for the well being of the human carer(mentally and physical) and even in some cases disliking boyfriends. These results appear to be more promising than the quantitative data that was collected and which might also suggest another possible route for a future investigation in the same area. Finally despite the fact that this was a small scale survey with a homogenous sample and although the companion animals' personalities appeared to be similar to humans in many ways a question seems to have emerged whether these appearing similarities are because these personalities have arisen through breed specific or current environment and human influences. Perhaps on the other hand humans do not just see human like personalities in their pets and treat them as humans, could it be also possible that those human like personalities actually exist on their own. Could it be that our pets are actually very similar to us and it is not just our anthropomorphic thinking that sees similarities everywhere in non-human species? The relationships that humans have with their pets is unique and very interesting and needs further investigation. Many theories have tried to explain why humans keep pets from blaming the pets themselves for being cute and manipulative to try to use social theories to justify these relationships in lack of others with humans. The fact remains though that many people choose to live and care for pets and although in most cases it is a personal choice and not all of these relationships between pets and humans are 'happy' ones...pets can still play successfully many roles in a family setting, roles which perhaps some humans can't. These types of relationship therefore need to be investigated more if we are to understand our own selves and even if we are to improve our own personalities. 11

12 References Albert, A., Bulcroft, K.(1988). Pets Families and the Life Course. Journal of Marriage and the Family Alger, J. M. & Alger, J.F (!997) Beyond Mead: Symbolic Interaction between Humans & Feline, Society & Animals Vol. 5 No.6 Belk, R.W. (1996) Metaphoric relationships with pets, Society and Animals 4: Cavanaugh, L. A., et al. 'A tail of two personalities: How Canine companions shape relationships and well-being', J Bus Res (2007), doi /jbustres Chartrand, T. L., Fitzsimons, G.M., Fitzsimons, G.J. (2008). Automatic Effects of Anthropomorhized Objects on Behavior. Social Cognition, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp Dotson. M.J., Hyatt, E. M., (2008). Understanding dog-human companionship. Journal of Business Research 61, Downey, H., Ellis, S.,(2008). Tails of animal attraction. Incorporating the feline into the family. Journal of Business Research 61, Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When We Need a Human: Motivational Determinants of Anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp Fox, R. (2006) Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal-human divide in pet-keeping, Social & Cultural Geography, Vol. 7, No. 4 Gosling, S. D.,Kwan, V. S. Y.,&John, O. P. (2003). A dog s got personality: A cross species comparative approach to personality judgments in dogs and humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, Gosling, S. D., & Vazire, S. (2002). Are we barking up the right tree? Evaluating a comparative approach to personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, Greenebaum, J. (2004) 'It's A Dog's Life: Elevating Status from Pet to 'Fur Baby' at Yappy Hour', Society & Animals 12:2 Gunter, B. (1999). Pets and People: The Psychology of Pet Ownership, Whurr Publishers Horrowitz, A. C., Bekoff, M. (2007). Naturalizing Anthropomorphism: Behavioural Prompts to Out Humanizing of Animals. Anthrozoos, Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp John, O. P., Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp ). New York: Guilford Press. 12

13 Jones, A.C., Gosling, S.D., (2005). Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): a review and evaluation of past research. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 95 (1 2), Kollus, Brad (2006). Born to Love Cat: The Need to Nurture. 13 August 15, 2006 Urban Animal Kwan, V. S. Y., Gosling, S.D., John, O. P. (2008). Anthropomorphism as a Special Case of Social Perception: A cross Species Social Relations Model Analysis of Humans and Dogs. Social Cognition, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp Ley, J., Bennett, P.C. (2007). Understanding personality by understanding companion dogs. Anthrozoos. Vol. 20, issue 2, pp Ley, J., Bennett, P.C., Coleman, G.J. (2009). A refinement and validation of the Monash Canine Personality Questionnaire (MCPQ). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 116, Lowe, S. E., Bradshaw, J. W. S.,(2001). Ontogeny of individuality in the domestic cat in the home environment. Animal Behaviour, 2001, 61, Melson, G. F. (2002). Psychology and the Study of Human-Animal Relationships. Society & Animals 10:4 Mertens, C, (1991). Human-cat interactions in the home setting. Anthrozoos, Sanders, C. R. (2003) Actions Speak Louder than Words: Close Relationships between Humans and Nonhuman Animals. Symbolic Interaction, Volume 26, Number 3, pages Serpell, J. (1996) Evidence for an association between pet behaviour and owner attachment levels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science Serpell, J. (1996). In The Company Of Animals, Cambridge University Press, Canto. Serpell, J. (2003). Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection Beyond The 'Cute Response'. Society & Animals 11:1 Srivastava, S. (2009). Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors. Retrieved [03/03/09] from Schilhab, T.S.S. (2002). Anthropomorphism and mental state attribution. Animal Behaviour, 63, (available online at: Svartberg, K., Tappert, I., Radesater. T., Thorman, S. (2005). Consistency of personality traits in dogs. Animal Behavior, 2005, 69, Veevers, J. (1985). 'The Social meaning of pets: Alternative roles for companion animals' in Pets and the Family (Marriage and Family Review Series, Vol 9) in Sussman, M. B. (author, editor) Watson, D., Klohnen, E.C, Casillas, A., Simms, E. N. Haig J. Berry, D. (2004) Match Makers and Deal Breakers: Analyses of Assortative Mating in Newlywed Couples. Journal of Personality 72:5, , October

14 Westgarth, C., Pinchbeck, G. L., Bradshaw, J., Dawson, S., Gaskell, R. M., Christley, R. M.(2007). Factors associated with dog ownership and contact with dogs in a UK community. BMC Veterinary Research 2007, 3:5 (available from: Wynne, C.D.L.(2007). What are Animals? Why Anthropomorphism is Still Not a Scientific Approach to Behaviour. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews Vol. 2, pp