| References |
1. Belozjorova N. N., Shapochkin D. V. Nekotorye aspekty issledovanija kinologicheskogo
diskursa // Vestn. Cheljabinsk. gos. un-ta. 2011. № 11 (226). Filologija. Iskusstvovedenie. Vyp. 53.
S. 17–20.
2. Krivolapchuk N. D. Prikladnaja psihologija sobaki: ucheb. posobie. Rostov n/D: Feniks, 2008.
560 s.
3. Nikol’skaja A. V. Teoreticheskaja model’ psihologicheskogo vzaimo-dejstvija cheloveka s
domashnimi zhivotnymi: jekopsihologicheskij podhod // VI Rossijskaja konf. po jekologicheskoj
psihologii: tezisy. (Moskva, 25–26 oktjabrja 2012 g.). SPb.: Nestor-Istorija, 2012. S. 289–292.
4. Panov V. I., Nikol’skaja A. V. V. A. Vagner i kontury mezhvidovoj psihologii // Preemstvennost’
psihologicheskoj nauki v Rossii: tradicii i innovacii: sb. materialov Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf.,
posvjashhjonnoj 215-letiju Gercenovskogo universiteta. SPb.: Izd-vo RGPU im. A. I. Gercena, 2012.
S. 101–118.
5. Reznikova Zh. I. Sovremennye podhody k izucheniju jazykovogo povedenija zhivotnyh //
Razumnoe povedenie i jazyk. Kommunikativnye sistemy zhivotnyh i jazyk cheloveka. M.: Jazyki
slavjanskih kul’tur, 2006. S. 293–337.
6. Stivenson S. A. Lajat’ zapreshheno. Disciplinirovanie zhivotnyh i ih vladel’cev v Juzhnoj
Kalifornii // Zhurnal issledovanij social’noj politiki. 2010. T. 8. № 2. S. 253–272.
7. Fedorovich E. Ju. Domashnie pitomcy kak funkcional’nye chleny sem’i: doklad. URL: http://
do.gendocs.ru/docs/index-122594.html (data obrashhenija: 20.08.2013).
8. American Animal Hospital Association, 2004. URL: https://www.aahanet.org/Library/
PetOwnerSurvey.aspx.
9. Beetz A., Uvnдs-Moberg K., Julius N., & Kotrschal K. (2012). Psychosocial and
psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: the possible role of oxytocin. URL: http://
www.frontiersin.org/Psychology_for_ Clini-cal_Settings/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00234/abstract.
10. Bentosela M., Barrera G., Jakovcevic A., Elgier A.M., & Mustaca A. E. (2008). Effect of
reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris). Behavioural Processes. Vol. 78. № 3. P. 464–469.
11. Byrne R.W. Animal Communication: What makes a dog able to understand its master?
Current Biology. Vol. 13. № 9. P. 347–348.
12. Chur-Hansen A., Winefield H. & Beckwith M. Reasons given by elderly men and women for
not owning a pet, and the implications for clinical practice and research. Journal of Health Psychology.
2008. № 13. P. 988–995.
13. Daly B., & Suggs S. Teachers’ experiences with humane education and animals in the
elementary classroom: Implications for empathy development. Journal of Moral Education. 2010.
№ 39. P. 101–112.
14. Dotson M. J., & Hyatt E. M. Understanding dog-human companionship. Journal of Business
Research. 2008. № 61 (5). P. 457–466.
15. Gбcsi M., Vas J., Topбl J., & Miklуsi Б. Wolves do not join the dance: Sophisticated
aggression control by adjusting to human social signals in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
2013. № 145. P. 109–122.
16. Gosling S. D., Sandy C. J., & Potter J. Personalities of self-identified ‘dog people’ and ‘cat
people.’ Anthrozoӧs. 2010. № 23. P. 213–222.
17. Hare B., Brown M., Williamson C., & Tomasello M. The domes-tication of social cognition
in dogs. Science. 2002. № 298. P. 1634–1636.
18. Hare B., & Tomasello M. Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
2005. № 9. P. 439–444.
19. Horowitz A.C. & Bekoff M. Naturalizing anthropomorphism: behavioral prompts to our
humanizing of animals. Anthrozoцs. 2007. № 20 (1). P. 23–35.
20. Johnson S. B. & Rule W. R. Personality characteristics and self-esteem in pet owners and
non-owners. Intern. Journ. of Psychol. 1991. № 26. P. 241–252.
21. Kaminski J., Tempelmann S., Call, J. & Tomasello M. Domestic dogs comprehend human
communication with iconic signs. Developmental Science. 2009. № 12 (6). P. 831–837.
22. Lorenz K. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. 1970; 1971.Vol. I, II.
23. McConnell A.R., Brown C.M., Shoda T.M., Stayton L.E. & Martin C.E. Friends with benefits:
On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011.
№ 101. P. 1239–1252.
24. Merrill Sh.M. Individual Diferences and pet ownership status: distin-guishing among diferent
types of pet owners and non-owners. Master›s theses. San Jose State University. 2012. URL: htp: //
scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses.
25. Miklosi A. Dog Behavior, Evolution & Cognition. New York: OUP, 2008.
26. Miklosi A., Kubinyi E., Topal J., Viranyi, Z. & Csanyi V. A simple reason for a big difference:
wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Current Biology. 2003. № 13. P. 763–766.
27. Nawroth Ch., Ebersbach M. & von Borell, E. Are juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa
domestica) sensitive to the attentive states of humans? Behavioural Processes. 2013. Vol. 96. P. 53–58.
28. O›Haire M. E., McKenzie S. J., Beck A. M. & Slaughter, V. Social behaviors increase in
children with autism in the presence of animals compared to toys. PloS one. dx.plos.org. 2013.
29. Staats S., Wallace H. & Anderson T. Reasons for companion animal guardianship (pet
ownership) from two populations. Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies. 2008.
№ 16. P. 279–291.
30. Word J.L. Pet perks: an examination and analysis of the relationship between companion
animals and the development of empathy. Honors thesis. 2013. URL: https://digital.library.txstate.
edu/handle/10877/4475. |
